User talk:JBW/Archive 77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70 ← Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
  • The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Remember

Hello did you forgot to answer my questions? Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tylertoney Dude perfect: No, but I thought you didn't need me to answer because the sockpuppet case had been dropped. As you have probably seen, I have now posted a message to your talk page, which I hope will help. If there is still anything else I need to say or do, please let me know. JBW (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

AN

Your name has come up at AN from a user both of us have warned. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A query

This query is about something you did a couple years ago, so it may be hard to remember. But I was looking for some old TimedText files I had uploaded for some Meghan Trainor songs, and saw in the records that they were all deleted by you. It seems to maybe have sprung from this nomination, so I wanted to ask why only the files I uploaded were deleted and, note-worthily, identical files for Lady Gaga and Nick Jonas songs (that are also listed at the discussion) have been retained? I couldn't find any different in their usage and my uploads.--NØ 08:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: As you say, this was quite a while ago (a little over 3 years ago) and I don't remember it at all, but I've looked at all the related history I have found, including the deletion logs, the deletion discussions, the discussion that led to your block being ended, and so on. I don't think the deletions you mention had anything to do with the archived Wikipedia talk:Non-free content discussion you linked to. That discussion took place way back in 2015, and although I made one brief and noncommittal comment there, I think it is highly unlikely that I remembered it, and the reasons I gave for deletion in 2017 don't seem to fit at all with what I said in that discussion. Also, if it had been based on that discussion then it is difficult to see why I would not have done the same to the other files listed there. I think what most probably happened was that somehow, I have no idea how, my attention was drawn to one of the files, presumably the first one I deleted, and having seen it I looked at the editing history of the account that uploaded it to see whether there were any other files with similar problems. That would obviously not have led me to see the other files that were uploaded by editors other than you.
I can't see any clear decision on the fair use question, but it looks to me on the whole as though fair use is probably OK provided that the file is actually in use in a way compliant with the fair use policy. When I deleted the files, in the deletion logs for most of them (all but one of them if I remember correctly) I said that the file was not in use, so that a claim of fair use was impossible. If you do intend to use the files, and if you are willing to make sure that the use is in line with the fair use policy, I will be happy to restore the deleted files. JBW (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, all of the audio samples connected to the text files are still in use. That is why the deletion rationale confused me. I definitely would suggest either restoring all of the Trainor samples or deleting the other ones too. But yes, they are being used since they are connected to audio samples in use.--NØ 03:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

JBW, will you be able to restore the text files soon? A few of them will effect certain articles I have GA nominated.--NØ 11:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: At the moment I'm editing on my phone, and the process of digging through the old deletion history and restoring them would be a bit fiddly. I can do it that way, but if you are willing to wait a few more hours I'd prefer to do it when I can use a computer. JBW (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the weird /64s

Hi JBW. You blocked Special:Contributions/2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:0/64. There have been a lot of appeals from it on-wiki and in UTRS. This is an AT&T Mobility range, and for some of their ranges a /64 includes many people. Based on CheckUser data, I can confirm that there is a lot of collateral here. If you didn't have a specific person in mind over the entire range, it might be worth lowering. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I thought of giving you a detailed account of my thoughts behind the block, but I decided instead to just unblock the range. It's been quite a while, and it may well be that the problematic editing won't recur. JBW (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Creation of poorly written articles

This editor here has neen creating poorly written articles after several warnings from reviewers who have a lot of work trying to fix the mess.I think a topic ban may necessary here, or what do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synoman Barris (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CHUS

Hello, To let you know that we also have a script to auto populate permalink in rename reason for better linking of renames. Please see User:Enterprisey/rename-reason-fixer. Thanks! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Youtuber Criteria

Hi JBW. I was wondering if you still wanted to delete Wikipedia:Youtuber Criteria according to this discussion, as the page has remained unchanged since then (apart from a comment on its talk page). Thanks! – Aranya (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for reminding me of this, Aranya. I meant to go back to it after waiting a couple of days or so in case of a further response, but it went the way of many of my intentions in the face of my attention deficit disorder. JBW (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Arya Dance Academy

Hi, JB. I don't know what "filter 1067" is but I just noticed a bot reported AryaWashington & AryaWashingtonDC to the Vandalism Noticeboard. Given that the latter has a Facebook account pointing at the Academy's website, these likely are for promoting them as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

121.179.131.132

Hello, JBW. I would like to ask a block against this IP editor because all their contributions constitute vandalism, namely blatant violation of WP:COPYVIO. They keep copypasting large chunks of text from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the New Advent, e.g., here: [1] (cf. [2]) or here: [3] (cf. [4]). Furthermore, they also keep inserting the phrase "∅ in Primary Encyclopedic Published Academic Source" in accurately sourced articles or inserting original research in other articles: [5]. When reverted per WP:CYCLE they start edit-warring. Other editors have dealt with the IP editor as well: [6], [7], [8].Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Need an admin, and I think you're the one

You're undoing some sock/vandal and I think they're back. Definitely a lot of vandalism. Buiiytd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Listed them at AIV, but they're closing AfDs with false signatures. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't have checkuser do you, because they also welcomed account Gvmmyybear 34 seconds after it was created. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Buiiytd is another sock of User:Dunnt717 and User:Soperisy. The guy just won't quit. I can't keep tracking them down and reporting them since I need to take a break. Also, some of their false closes in afd still aren't reverted like this one Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kanye_West_2020_presidential_campaign. - Harsh (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jerod Lycett and Harsh 2580: Thanks to both of you for telling me. I too was suspicious of Gvmmyybear. I have re-opened the sockpuppet investigation that I had closed, and requested a CheckUser. It's impossible to keep up with reverting everywhere, reporting at the SPI, blocking, etc. The editor has found a clever trick to prevent mass rollback of all their edits: including fake page protection templates with edits, which means that a bot removes the template, so that the sock's edit is not the last edit to the page. A very simple trick, and very effective, because it means each page has to be reverted individually by hand, slowing things down considerably. I'm wondering about asking at AN for help. Obviously any reverting you can do will help too, but none of us can keep doing it for ever. JBW (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, Correcting ping for Harsh 2580 above. I know the editor has seen the message, but another time that might not happen. Signatures that differ from the user name can be confusing, and in my opinion therefore better avoided. JBW (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

...and now I find the same applies to Jerodlycett, except that in your case I don't know whether you have seen the message or not, confirming what I said above in relation to Harsh 2580. Would you consider having your user name changed to "Jerod Lycett", which I agree looks better, and would avoid the problem? JBW (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: Changed my sig. Thanks for pointing it out. Would it be possible to create an edit filter to restrict non-extended confirmed users to close afd? Anytime such a user removes {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} temp, should trigger the filter. - Harsh 2580 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Harsh 2580: An edit filter sounds like a good idea, but I know very little about how edit filters work. It would be worth asking an edit filter manager (or whatever they're called). I have some more thoughts on this, but I don't have time to do any more now. JBW (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@JBW: I'd prefer to keep my edit history. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jerod Lycett: Yes, but I didn't have in mind creating a new account, which would lose your edit history, I was referring to having your existing account renamed, which would keep your editing history. As it says at the top of this page, my account was renamed in 2019, but if you check the editing history of the account you will see edits going all the way back to 2006, when I created the account. The history listing of those edits was automatically updated to the new name when the account was renamed. Anyway, it's totally up to you, but if you do decide to have your name changed, let me know, and I'll do it for you, which will probably take less trouble than going through the procedure at WP:NAMECHANGE. JBW (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have my account renamed to harshk along with edit history intact? The 2580 is a number I've started to hate. - Harsh 2580 (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
If an usurption is possible to rename to just harsh. This account has 2 edits, is inactive, and has en.wiki as home wiki. So qualifies per WP:CHUU. - Harsh 2580 (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Harsh 2580: I'm afraid what looks like a very simple request has turned out to be not at all as straightforward as you might expect, because of both those names already being registered.
It can be distinctly frustrating that as time goes on more and more perfectly good user names are unavailable because someone once came along and created an account with that name, and then went off and forgot all about it, and is never going to come back. That problem also became vastly bigger when we switched to unified global user names, rather than each project having its own user names, because now people can't even use a name that has never been registered on English Wikipedia if someone has created an account with that name elsewhere. On the other hand I have occasionally seen accounts that were created, made just one or two edits, did nothing more until many years later, occasionally even more than a decade later, and then suddenly started editing. I can therefore see that there is some sense to not allowing usurpation of scarcely used names.
Having said that, now on to the user names you suggest.
  • Harsh: Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations says "The account you want to usurp should have no edits or significant log entries to qualify for usurpation (though rare exceptions are made in some circumstances)." (Emphasis in the original.) It says nothing about what those circumstances which warrant "rare exceptions" might be. I can't see anything in your case particularly exceptional, and I am unwilling to stick my neck out and decide that this is one of those rare exceptions. If you like you can make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations, and it is possible that one of the global renamers who deal with more renaming requests than I do may be willing to do it, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.
  • Harshk: Although there is no account with that user name on English Wikipedia, there is one on Malayalam Wikibooks. That account was created a little over 8 years ago and has no edits at all, so it should be OK for usurpation, I should think. However, Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations also says 'The account you want to usurp must have the English Wikipedia as its "home wiki"', and since English Wikipedia is not the account's home wiki, such a change should not be done on English Wikipedia. If you would still like to change to that user name, you may file a request at meta::Steward requests/Username changes. However, that will require waiting for at least a month
  • Alternatively, if you are not totally committed to either of those names, here are two suggestions which will be quicker and easier to deal with.
  1. Think of another possible username, and to see whether it has been taken go to Special:CentralAuth, which will inform you of any use of the user name, on any Wikimedia project.
  2. Go for Harsh! which I have checked, and it isn't taken, as you can check for yourself if you like. As far as I know there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to change your user name to that one right away, if you want me to. JBW (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to go with hako9. There's no global account with that name. Also, thanks a lot for taking the time to explain all this. - Harsh 2580 (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done 21:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what to do

I have been reading the talk page of PAustin4thApril1980. I see that you previously blocked him for not using edit summaries (which is still a problem but not why I am here). I tried to have a discussion with him about one of his edits. I admit that I was a little bit upset at the time and probably didn't express myself as welly as I should have, but his answer just left me shaking my head. It is bad enough that he wanted to treat something as fact based on an anonymous poster on some forum, but his words about a woman who committed suicide concern me. Someone who thinks that having breast implants means that a woman is a sex worker shouldn't be allowed to edit any articles about women (in my opinion). Is there any mechanism for dealing with something like this on Wikipedia? Mo Billings (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mo Billings: After reading your message here, I looked at the editor's talk page, and checked some editing history. I have several thoughts on several things I saw, but for now I have just posted a message to the editor's talk page, mentioning what seem to me to be significant points relating to the particular incident. I suggest for the moment seeing whether that makes any impact, but please contact me again if you think there is good reason to do so, and I will consider things again. JBW (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Mo Billings (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

For supporting me and unblocking me. Will be greatful to you ISL fan (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Advice, if you feel you can

Where would it be polite for me to register my thoughts regarding User talk:RAJIVVASUDEV? I filed the sockpuppetry complaint that the checkuser concerned acted upon. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 22:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: It rather depends on what the thoughts are that you wish to register. If you would like to let me know what sort of thing you have in mind I will offer you my thoughts. If your use of the word "polite" indicates thing that you prefer not to say too openly you can email me. JBW (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
My thoughts are entirely negative, and I feel that the project would not benifit in the least from a user who does not meet the reqiurements of wp:cir in the english language as a basic requirement. As a "textile professional" too I dread his return to editing. He did not even understand the most basic of questions, a couple of which remain unanswered, still on his Talkpage. I want to rant but wont. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Fastily § User:ISL fan/Userboxes/Hyderabad FC

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Fastily § User:ISL fan/Userboxes/Hyderabad FC. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

14 or 15 year old rumor

There's a 14 or 15 year old rumor that gets brought up once in a blue moon, that the Punisher made a cameo appearance in the Spider-Man 2 film, but the only thing these people are basing that on is that the guy somewhat looks like Thomas Jane (opinion) and is wearing all black... that's it. But now there saying it was his stunt double from the film, but it's never been proven from anyone, no "quotes" or statements, they claim it's from a Wizard Magazine and the audio commentary from Spider-Man 2, but after 14 or 15 years, you would think we would know that by now. Story wise it makes no sense, also, Sony didn't own the rights to use the character, they would have gotten sued by Lionsgate, there was no MCU at the time.

These pages might need to be locked for a time because it seems this isn't going to stop and the IP address making these edits has been given many warnings from other edits.[12] 108.208.137.67 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

For now I have blocked the IP address for edit-warring for a couple of days. When I get time I will try to look into it in more detail to see whether anything else should be done, but it's not easy, because I don't know any of the background, and I don't know what the claimed references say. JBW (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Banana for you!

Banana for you!
I think you're amazing! Here take a banana. ARegularWisconsinite (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Found another block-evading IP-hopper

Hi, JB. 198.23.0.0/16 was blocked for a few days; something to keep an eye on if they return. Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For tirelessly educating new users and users who have encountered difficulties. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Thank you, it's good to know my efforts are at least sometimes appreciated. However, I am much less good at doing it than I was back in my early days as an editor. I'm afraid I've just spent far too much of my time dealing with vandals, spammers, etc etc, with the result that I now find it much more difficult than before to take a sympathetic line when editors are persistently problematic. In fact it might be of interest to you if you could see my original draft for the message that prompted this post from you. It really wasn't very friendly at all, but fortunately before clicking "Publish changes" I re-read it, and thought "No, let's edit that a little bit", and finished up editing it beyond recognition. Ten years ago I would probably have written the more friendly version in the first instance. Anyway, occasionally getting feedback supporting my better efforts helps to keep me on track. JBW (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that you're one of the best admins on this project. Every time I come across your well-reasoned and kind unblock appeal responses, whether to decline or accept (or just to provide guidance), it makes me want to do better. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't

you shouldn't have reverted onecoin post. I have very important information

не давайте мне эту чушь

Y1Y23JH8 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Explain to me (1) what your edit meant and (2) what it has to do with editing the article. JBW (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, JBW. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Explanation

It's not vandalism. I simply corrected it. Iknowwahtmdoingchill (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Ayounan sock

I think that the edit history makes it pretty clear. I've found that requesting the undeletion of a draft created by a blocked user is pretty revealing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@GPL93: You may well be right, but I can't see an evidence definite enough to justify taking any action, so for now I'm leaving it. However, please let me know if you see any more definite evidence. JBW (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Rick Sopher

In case you weren't watching, thought you might like to know that I declined your prod of Rick Sopher and then immediately thereafter listed the article at AfD. I think he's arguably notable as a businessman quoted in various mainstream outlets—even though I agree with you that, ultimately, he fails the relevant criteria. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: OK, thanks for letting me know; not everybody does that courtesy. I'm not clear why anyone would want to decline a deletion proposal if they think the article should be deleted, but that's your choice. JBW (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Kudos

I thought this was a very helpful and thoughtful explanation for the block you placed. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@28bytes: Ah, but have you seen the postscript I added to it? I'm not always friendly. JBW (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Tillyria

Dear admin, can you please check this page. Not sure how and where to report. Please ping when you response. Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I've had a quick look, and it's a horrible mess. I don't have time now to look into it further, but I'll try to get back onto it within 24 hours. JBW (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
There's no problem except an user keep deleting content. Thanks anyway. Beshogur (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Beshogur: The particular editor who was being disruptive has now been blocked. Is there anything else you think I could do, or was that it? The article is in desperate need of sources, but I know very little about the topic, so I am not in a good position to do that. JBW (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@JBW:, I am also very little informed about the article, but I will try. I didn't add these texts tho. Thanks anyway. Beshogur (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:PAustin4thApril1980

JBW, I have been checking PAustin4thApril1980's edits from time to time since my first encounter with him. He has made some just inexplicable edits lately. He added an unsourced claim that an unknown murder victim was male "based on the attending doctor or midwife seeing a penis and testicles" which is probably true but a very odd thing to highlight. He removed Walter Mondale's well-known nickname of "Fritz" on the basis that "Fritz is a common European nickname for Frederick. In addition, in modern times, he's usually referred to as just Walter Mondale". He added an unsourced opinion that a dead actress "co-incidentally physically resembled the American singer Renee Sands who was born sixteen years before her". And he replaced a "citation needed" template with an unsourced opinion which he labelled as a reference. The last example may relate to our initial disagreement, but the others suggest that there might be competency issues. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mo Billings: I've had a quick look, but I don't have time now to look into it properly. I'll try to get back onto it within 24 hours. JBW (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. There's no hurry. Mo Billings (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I was adhering to policy with Walter Mondale - Fritz is a common nickname and most people don't call him "Fritz Mondale" in 2020 (as opposed to 1984). If you compare pictures of Renee Sands with Jessica Jacobs, you can see why people added the resemblance to Jacobs's IMDB page (which is where i got the statement from). As for Julie Doe, some editors act as if transgender people were always transgender. Julie was certainly NOT a transgender female as a mew-born baby. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Scott Steward

Why do you defend him? Pat88488 (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Pat88488: Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do not defend the subjects of articles-- nor do we defame them. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." On a biography of a living person, any negative, unsourced (potentially defamatory) content is to be removed at once. I notice you did not source your edit. That is why it was removed. Cheers, and happy editing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Pat88488: I didn't defend anyone, as you full well know; I just warned you to stop vandalising. In view of the trolling message you have posted here, I will now tell you that any more of your crap will be likely to result in your being blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Really considering a partial block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) We don't need to tolerate shit like this - blocked as a vandalism-only account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra and Boing! said Zebedee: if it's of any interest to you, here are some of my thoughts on this. Based on my experience of editors like this, I thought there would probably never be any more edits anyway, block or none. That being so, I preferred not to block, on the basis that if the editor didn't edit again it wouldn't make any difference whether I blocked or not, and in the less likely event that the editor did edit again, I would block immediately, and the case for a block would be more unambiguously proved, making any possible unblock request easier to close. However, in view of my belief that the account's editing career was probably over anyway, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the block, so I won't be taking Boing! to ANI over it.
By the way, I wonder whether either of you can guess what I am thinking of that the two of you have in common, in relation to the history of your accounts. (My first draft of this message contained several clues as to what I was thinking of, but I decided that perhaps that wasn't a good idea.) JBW (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2020 (U
No clue. Too tired and too basically dull-witted to guess. Not clear as to what you have on your mind. Pat88488 seemed to be on some sort of mission. I gave him a welcome and hoped for the best in the context of our replies. I'm sometimes more patient than Boing! was in this instance,, and would have liked to see Pat88488 try to be constructive. I don't see how you would consider ANIing a block of someone who added defamation to a BLP. That had to be stopped, and sometimes such continues until the user is blocked. I can certainly unwatch your talk page if you find me watching it to be a problem. May not be online again till Tuesday. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm generally pretty tolerant of idiots making a couple of vandalism edits and then going away, but I tend to lose that tolerance when they start taunting those who revert and chastise them. Anyway, the thing in common... in and out of adminship? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra and Boing! said Zebedee: Oh dear. I seem to have really messed up here. In the course of what I thought was a rather inconsequential and light-hearted talk page post I have evidently said at least a couple of things that would have been better unsaid. In the hope that I am not violating the first law of holes I will try to clean up a bit.
The remark about ANI was meant to be a rather tongue in cheek way of saying "I wouldn't have blocked, but I don't think it matters much one way or the other, so I have no criticism of your block." Saying it in the form "I won't be taking Boing! to ANI over it" rather than just "I don't criticise your block" was just a jokey way of expressing myself, and I didn't expect anyone to think I might really have considered ANI. Evidently I misjudged it, and for that I apologise.
Deepfried, I certainly don't find your watching my talk page to be a problem, and you are perfectly welcome to stay if you like. From time to time over the last decade you have made very helpful comments here, and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't continue to do so.
I really shouldn't have mentioned the thing you have in common. It was just something really trivial which just happened to occur to me, and I made a throw away remark about it, but then realised that I really can't give the answer on Wikipedia, so it would have been better not to have mentioned it. If either of you really wants to know the answer, I can tell you by email, but on the whole I think it's too trivial to be worth bothering with.
As for the editor who started this section, it was this edit which made me think it was a matter of an out and out vandal, rather than a potentially constructive editor who needed a bit of learning; on the basis of the previous edits alone I would have given a large allowance of AGF. However, I may, of course have been wrong. JBW (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No, no, I got it and thought the "I won't be taking Boing! to ANI over it" was funny, honestly :-) I was just musing to myself about what makes me lose my tolerance, and I thought I'd share it. And go on, you have to tell me by email - however trivial, I just have to know now! (Though I'm off to bed now and probably won't be able to get it until morning). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Might you please help me, as the admin, with misleading and bias in Wiki?

To make a long story short, I tried to edit the page related to 'hate group' from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_group&oldid=974291539 multiple time to make it more diverse & sources-conforming, but all the time moderators or another 'watchers' undid it to one previous version represented only selected by someone narrative that does not even stay in line with today's point of an authors research center. As a person who doesn't like the use of only one side of a complex problem, I can't stay with it but now try to solve the problem within Wiki, not within media and related public instruments.


More longer: > Welcomes everybody to the discussion below 'Hate group' paper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group#Our_#Wikipedia_is_not_one's_Political_Instrument. Summary: today's version looks misleading, American-centrist (nothing mention phenomena of hate outside the USA and Southern Poverty Law Center) and moderators looks American chauvinist and supporting only nazi's or related old white supremacy symbols or flags, whereas even the major domain research center, SPLC as mentioned before, shows that have is more inclusive and diverse (in a negative way of this concepts). Moreover, the previous article authors misleading at FBI official state quotation to hate crimes to prove their own view. Hatred is not American or other today's rich country movements privilege, it has no borders or faces. Only people who do hate have these signs of division. And hate definitely has not only black/brown/multiracial/white/WASP/yellow or whatever you 'Americans' like to use to divisive yourself.

>> My heart is bleeding from English Wikipedia Censorship. I participated in the Wiki community of 3 languages (one from the beginning) for 10 years, but never saw this before. My ancestors, who were imprisoned to labor and concentration camps because of their nationality, ethnicity, and views, also would not approve your totalitarian informational policy of global source for the sake of polarization and mobilization of the population within one country before their local elections.

>> * Before: https://imgur.com/esXx8ja (misleading symbols with no sources, strange position of moderators that hate have the face and that is the only one (needed?) face)

>> * After: https://imgur.com/UrYMQQ0 (paraphrase misleading definition and unreasonable but conscious incorrect FBI citations, flags, and emblems with a source from a major source all other article formulated on)

>> * Letter about Wiki unjustice: https://imgur.com/IyeRmex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E01:740:A4A5:22F0:4853:5FB3 (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There are many things I could say about this, just a few of which I will mention on the article's talk page. However, one thing which I will say here is that in writing to me you said "whatever you 'Americans' like to use". I have no idea why you assume I am American. I have certainly never said on Wikipedia that I am. JBW (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

Sir, I am sincerely thankful for unblocking me. Warm regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

1897 Darwin cyclone edits

I have undone your revert on 1897 Darwin cyclone.

A close reading of the source I removed, as opposed to a quick skim, would have readily identified the sources do not support the content. The fact the source was being relied on to erroneously reference a 'Federal Cabinet' makes obvious the incorrect reading of the source, given an Australian Federal Cabinet did not exist given Australia had yet to complete Federation.

I would suggest a more friendly approach to a new account making good faith edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorNo39963088 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@EditorNo39963088: I would suggest a more friendly approach to an editor who has given a perfectly civil and friendly message in a good-faith attempt to help a new editor understand the need to give clear reasons for editing. JBW (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to ask, but can you please look here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FChen_Rui

Can you please ask Marven Twen to cease the personal attacks. Against at least 5 editors now and none ending. I must admit I have no idea of how to ask him to listed to me and others and stop all the false accusations. Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giant-Dwarfs (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

utrs request

With pleasure. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Thanks. JBW (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Kudumbar article

Hi, under the Kudumbar article, this source was removed previously. Pls add them back It was under origin.

Origin The Kudumbar's origin is associated with origin of the Velalar agriculturists.<ref>{{Cite book|url=|title=People of India|last=Singh|first=Kumar Suresh|publisher=Anthropological Survey of India |year=2001|isbn=|location=|page=779|language=en}}</ref> Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

2) The picture in the article refers to kurumbar and not Kudumbar Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for trying to get me to help them evade a topic ban by proxy. JBW (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Help me!

Hey JWB I'm User: Basimji zulfkar could you please protect my page Chowdhary Zulfkar Ali to protect it from vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basimji zulfkar (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No, Basimji zulfkar, because there hasn't been any vandalism there. Clearly you don't mean "to protect it from vandalism"; you mean "to keep the article the way I want it, and prevent anyone else from changing it", which is unacceptable, as that is not how Wikipedia works. However, I have blocked your account, as you may already know by the time you read this, because of various problems with your editing. JBW (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Kim yard

Can user: Kim yard please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@CLCStudent:  Done JBW (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

PAustin4thApril1980 again

I was hoping that PAustin4thApril1980 would improve their editing as a result of your warnings, but you should read the discussion on my talk page. It may be a competence issue. Mo Billings (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mo: Yes, I did see the discussion on your talk page, and I had already blocked the editor before I saw your message here. To begin with I thought it was stubborn refusal to accept policy, but I too have come round to the view that it may be a competence issue. It's difficult to tell. JBW (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Sneaky IP hopper?

Hi, JB. Seems I stumbled across a WP:SNEAKY IP hopper – 2601:58B:480:1700:0:0:0:0/64. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes. When I first saw this message I decided not to do anything about it, because there had been no editing for a couple of days. However, I have now checked more thoroughly, and I see that there has previously bee a gap of much longer than that in the editing history, so that is no guarantee that the vandalism is over. Also, the problematic editing had been going on for a month, and there is no other history of editing from the IP range so that there is no danger at all of collateral damage. I have therefore placed a range block for a while. JBW (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi JBW, you wrote to me User_talk:Eliellou that I may have a COI regarding PMCI page. I indeed work on the development of PMCI WG standard, and I noted that in my page as you requested - still - I think the page I create is factual. It was created to be a framework for the pages of the different specs we develop (NC-SI, MCTP). Don't know if it is related, but the page was reverted. Trying to understand why. Thanks, Eliel Louzoun (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eliel Louzoun: Sorry I haven't replied to this message yet. Unfortunately I don't have time now, but I'll try to get back to you within 24 hours. JBW (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Eliel Louzoun: If you wish to know more clearly what the reason for the reverting of your editing was, you should ask Onel5969, the editor who did the reverting. However, he gave the reason as "no indication of notability". You may find it helpful to look at the notability guidelines to see what is required to indicate notability, but a short summary of the main point is that generally speaking in order for a topic to be considered notable enough to be the subject of an article, there needs to be significant coverage of a topic in multiple reliable published sources. Also, those sources have to be independent of the subject, so for example coverage on the web site of an organisation is not considered evidence of notability of that organisation.
Although it doesn't relate specifically to what you wrote above, it may help you if I make a few comments about my impression on looking at the article as you wrote it. The thing which struck me most immediately was that nobody who did not already have a significant amount of knowledge of the subject would have the remotest idea what the article was about. You refer to "the platform management subsystem", "the usage of the protocols defined by the WG", "a set of protocols supporting platform-level data models and platform functions in a platform management subsystem", and so on and so on, but you don't explain what they are, and most readers of Wikipedia will not know what they are. I can think of two possible reasons for that. Firstly, you may be aiming your writing at an audience that you assume already has some prior knowledge of the subject, but Wikipedia aims to be written for general readers, not for people with specialist knowledge. Secondly, you may be intending your writing to be for general readers, but be so closely involved in the subject that you don't realise how far away from the average reader your writing is pitched. I'm afraid that in my opinion even if you are able to produce citations to sources that answer Onel5969's concerns about notability, the page will not be suitable as a Wikipedia article. JBW (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Odunsi (The Engine)

Hello, JBW, I wrote a draft on Odunsi (The Engine), and when I was done with the drafted article and was ready to proceed into publishing it live. I was instructed to contact you because it was deleted under G4 or G5, I'm unsure of the previous version of this article, but my version is up to date, according to the date it was deleted and the new publications I came acrossd on Yahoo News, Teen Vogue, The New York Times show's my version is updated.--IJK193 (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dealuri at utrs

Inclined to unblock per UTRS appeal #34757 It's long-winded and in broken English, but I think hits the salient points. Thoughts? - --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I still have considerable doubts, on CIR grounds, but I am a great believer in giving blocked editors another opportunity if there's any reasonable chance of success in doing so, so I don't object. JBW (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I posted concerns on their UTRS and talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

LoganBlade

LoganBlade (talk · contribs) is requesting unblock at UTRS appeal #34747. Would like to carry to WP:AN and restore TPA --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I see you have already gone ahead and done this, but if it's of any interest I would have agreed with the suggestion anyway. JBW (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Sorry, running out of time. Seemed the reasonable thing, though the odds are against success. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Now that's interesting, they both had problems with images. Not getting my hopes up. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A formal Greeting

★ Hey, JBW a formal greeting from my side. Long time no see.

★ So start by telling me what is considered as an appropriate source and what is not?

★ And I am currently feeling unemployed(on wikipedia) , getting to mostly no place where an edit is required. So tell me if you find yourself busy and find a place that requires edits.

★ 103.145.134.249 Please see this user his last edit in Roadies: Real Heroes was a possible vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tylertoney Dude perfect:
  • Thanks for the greetings, and greetings back to you.
  • Sorry for not answering you before. Also, I'm afraid now I have only enough time for a note on a couple of matters, but I'll try to get back to you with a fuller answer covering the other things you mention within a day or so.
  • The edit by 103.145.134.249 very probably was vandalism, though I haven't checked to make sure. However, a one-off small piece of vandalism like that is not worth any more than reverting (which you did) and perhaps posting a warning message to the talk page. I do think it's a good idea to post a message, even for such a small thing, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, of course, it may discourage the editor from doing the same again. Secondly, if it doesn't do that, then the fact that the editor has been warned and not taken any notice makes it far more likely that something will be done about it. Very often reports at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism are declined simply because the editor has not been warned, or has not been warned enough. Warnings can be either in the form of one of the standard warning templates or a message you write yourself. If you do use the standard templates, don't make the surprisingly common mistake of thinking that the editor has to be given a level 1 warning, then a level 2, and so on up to 4 before a report to administrators can be made. Personally I almost never use a level 1 warning, because if it really is vandalism then the level 1 warning is much too soft, and if it isn't really vandalism, but good-faith mistaken editing, then a vandalism warning is not the right thing to do.
  • When you post a message to any talk page or discussion page (but not an article) you should finish your post with four tildes, that is to say ~~~~. That will be automatically converted to a signature, which not only shows other editors who it was who wrote it, but also includes a link to your talk page, which can be helpful to other editors who wish to contact you there.
  • I will try to remember to get back to you with some comments about the two other things you asked about, but in the meanwhile you may or may not find it helpful to look at the guideline on reliable sources if you haven't already. I'm afraid that like almost all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in my opinion it's far too long and detailed, so I'll try to give you a short summary of what seem to me to be the most important points when I get time. JBW (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #35025

Ima ask at AN for indefinite UTRS block, unless it's a bad idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I've read the comments there, and an indefinite UTRS block is obviously needed. Does it need AN, rather than just a decision by an administrator? (That's a genuine question, as I don't know whether there's any policy or anything.) JBW (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
And the answer is-- I don't know. Certainly I can impose a temporary one. I know of no policy that says one way or another on the indef. I have not received clarification. I could just boldly do it, but what would ArbCom say? In reviewing the conversation, I think they would enjoy the AN post. Center of attention and all. So WP:DENY --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Bio-warn-deletion

Template:Bio-warn-deletion has been nominated for merging with Template:Db-bio-deleted. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 23:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Re; Moliere's death date

Hello JBW. Thanks for the revert at the Moliere article. I was searching for info to support or refute the edit and found this. I notice that the section on his death is bereft of references. Do you think this should be added there or maybe in the lede? Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I confess I was not as diligent as I perhaps should have been, as I just reverted because the reason given for the change was clearly not valid, without putting effort into trying to find a source for the true date. In that respect you have done better than I did. I have added the date and the reference you have provided to the section about his death. The Britannica article would probably be useful as a reference for other content in the Wikipedia article too, but for some reason loading up the Britannica page causes my web browser to grind almost to a halt, making searching through it for information almost impossible, so I have just left it at the one reference for the date of death. I don't know whether you might like to check to see if there's anything else there that you think could be used. JBW (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and your edits to the article. If my other wikignome tasks every slow down I'll try and take a more thorough look at the article. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: If your other wikignome tasks slow down... that would be something, coming from possibly the most intensively wikignoming editors on the project, or if not the most then somewhere towards the top. JBW (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Now you are making me blush. Many thanks for the kind compliment :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: I've just looked at your user page. Many of your user boxes say things that apply to me too. However, I have noticed one significant difference. I never thought that Dr Who was anywhere near as good after the demise of the first doctor. I still remember the first episode. JBW (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Your sentiments remind me of one of the first things I read when I was first learning about the show back in the early 80's. I'm paraphrasing but the person said "all those others (only 4 at the time :-)) couldn't hold a candle to Bill". Pat's performance as the Duke of Norfolk in The Six Wives of Henry VIII (1970 TV series) had always stuck in my memory so when I learned that he had gone almost immediately from playing the Doctor to that role I was fascinated. I even got the chance to mention that to him at the 20th anniversary convention in Chicago in '83. As to that very first episode I've watched it several times and still find it to be brilliant. It must have been an absolute marvel to watch in '63. On a side note early in the episode there are several young actors playing students who are classmates of Susan. They probably would have been in their 70s during the 50th anniversary celebrations and I wondered if anyone had tried to track them down to see if they had any memories of acting in that episode. At the time it would have been just a job but, as the years went on, they might have told friends or family that "I as there at the start of a TV institution". OK I'm whooshing down memory lane. Back to my gnoming :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnetteD (talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: Actually, although the first story grabbed my attention, and that of an enormous number of my contemporaries, it really wasn't one of the best. The real classic, which raised the programme from just a popular television series to, as you say, "a TV institution", was the first Dalek story. Alas, if I am not mistaken that one no longer exists. (Sorry to drag you away from your gnoming yet again, but this will be the last time, at least for today, as I need to get to bed.) JBW (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I should clarify that my statement is about that very first episode. The three set in the prehistoric world that come after it are a bit of a potboiler. It is fun to see a young Eileen Way who seems to have played someone in their 80s her whole career. The Daleks does exists in its entirety. The story that I've read is that is was labelled to be disposed of and was saved at the last moment by Ian Levine who just happened to be in the BBC office that day. Here is a list of what is still missing Doctor Who missing episodes. The animated recreations have been interesting. One other thing the special An Adventure in Space and Time is worth your time. It is a loving recreation of Hartnell's time as the Doctor written by Mark Gatiss. It really brings home the impact that first Dalek story had on the culture. Pleasant dreams. MarnetteD|Talk 21:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Obtaining Knowledge

Hello JBW, trust you are doing fine. You G5 speedy deleted Draft:Odunsi (The Engine) (which I was going to nominate for deletion whenever it was going to be published by the creator anyway) because I believed the article wasn't notable & the creator was a covert UPE editor, but my main confusion is this; the article creator doesn’t seem to be blocked or in any violation of anything & rather has a clean block log, so how then did a G5 apply? Perhaps this kind of questions & the answers I’m seeking are above my “pay grade” / “security clearance” but If you can explain to me I’d be more than interested in knowing what transpired there, if you can’t, that’s alright as I deeply suspect the article creator is definitely not a new user, having observed the delete history of that article, it appears only UPE editors have tried to create it, some of which are banned/blocked, the most pertinent being the user @Obari2Kay. Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I hope you will read the reply to your question which I have written elsewhere. JBW (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I have, I have posted a reply there as well. Celestina007 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on with this IP hopper

Hi, JB. Giving you a heads-up that 176.83.0.0/16 might be WP:NOTHERE all of a sudden. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Im that IP :) nice to meet u. Im totalt here for it. But qilipedia is not a cristal ball. It is a single until someone finda a source its promo. Love to all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.83.80.154 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Skywatcher68. I'm not sure about "NOTHERE", but there are certainly problems, such as edit-warring. As far as I can see the problematic editing is all in one half of the IP range you mention, namely 176.83.0.0/17, so I've blocked that range for a month. I was going to make it just 2 weeks, but I found that the range was blocked previously a few months ago for one month, so anything shorter than that was unlikely to be much help. Even a month may well be too short, but I don't want too much risk of collateral damage.
The editing history of the other half of the range you mentioned is Special:Contributions/176.83.128.0/17, and if you can see any evidence of the same editor there then please let me know, but from a fairly quick check I didn't see any. On the other hand I did see unmistakable evidence of the same editor at Special:Contributions/37.10.128.0/19, so I have blocked that range too. I looked to me as though the risk of collateral damage might be higher in that range, so I blocked for just one week, but I will be willing to consider a longer block if that seems necessary when the week is over. I was also thinking of protecting Heart of Glass (song) for a while, but another administrator got there before me, and semi-protected it for a week. Again, I will be willing to consider doing so for a longer time if it seems necessary, but better to first see whether that is enough. JBW (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. I'm around a little more often than I had been over the past few months and will let you know if I notice anything else odd. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I found some bored students

Hi, JB. Check out the recent edits here when you get a chance, the first October edit in particular. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Lone Wolf and Cub

IP address 172.250.44.165 is adding a review to the Influence section of the Lone Wolf and Cub page[13], but that doesn't confirm anything since that's just one person's opinion, the people from that show haven't said that.--108.208.137.38 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've posted a message to the IP talk page. Let me know if you see the problem continuing, and I'll consider whether to follow it up further.
You may like to consider making a Wikipedia account. If I get a message here from an editor using an account I can answer it here and ping the editor, and be fairly confident they'll see my message. If I get a message from an IP address with little history of editing, I can't be sure the editor will ever see my answer, even if I go to the extra trouble of posting here on the IP talk page as well as here. JBW (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Message reply

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Curious Case

This might just be trolling, but look who has appealed to be unblocked a day after someone else was blocked for evading a block. it definitely must be trolling seeing as they appealing via a sock account knowing all well & good that technical evidence shows they are a confirmed sock account. Celestina007 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Wow! It may be trolling, but from what I've seen of the history of this editor I think it's more likely to be stupidity. Either way, thanks for pointing this out to me. I've declined the unblock request. JBW (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Stupidity it is then, or perhaps a “drowning UPE editor grasping at straws” Hypothetically speaking; especially when they must have received a financial reward for a “Job well executed” only for it to be subsequently deleted. That’s bad because they’d have to do a refund & even worse because it’s a dent on their “UPE reputation/street cred” It goes something like this “Don’t use Mr John doe xyz I Paid Mr John doe xyz but my page got deleted. That is the worst nightmare for any UPE editor. Celestina007 (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@Celestina007: Yes, I suppose grasping at straws is a third possibility, along with trolling and stupidity. Also, I suppose some of the things that look to me like stupidity may not do so to someone who doesn't have the kind of past experience of how sockpuppeteers work that I have, and even more so if they don't realise that their deleted editing history is visible to an administrator. In any case, I am sure you are right about the devastating effect that deletions of articles may have on paid editors' livelihoods. To me, that is one of the main reasons for upholding the policy that pages created by block-evading editors can be deleted: it's the only disincentive we have to continuing sockpuppetry for such persistent block-evading UPE editors. Of course, it doesn't always work, or even anywhere near always, but for someone who doesn't care at all about following Wikipedia's requirements or about honesty, and who regards anything that earns them money as legitimate business, it's the only thing which stands any chance at all of discouraging them from continuing. JBW (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely correct!! Celestina007 (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

PAustin4thApril1980 again

When PAustin4thApril1980 returned from their recent block, they made this edit to Lime Street (TV series) which added the sentence "Auditions were held for the characters of the two young daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret Ann. Because it was seen as likely that Elizabeth, at least, would come of age during the show's projected run, casting directors saw hundreds of twelve and thirteen year old (cisgender) girls for the part" (bolding mine). I don't want to follow PAustin around trying to police their troublesome edits relating to young girls and murdered actresses, so I left it for someone else to fix. Yesterday an IP editor removed the "cisgender" part. for obvious reasons. PAustin reverted them. I am sorry to bring this editor up again here, but they are obviously not going to stop making these kinds of edits. If blocking them didn't work, perhaps a ban from editing articles about women (living or dead) would help? Mo Billings (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

distinguishing "cisgender" teenage girls from "transgender" teenage girls is meant to be respectful to trans children. The fact that they auditioned hundreds of girls for the part of Elizabeth - this info came from the book Heart to Heart with Robert Wagner (1986) by Diana Maychick and L. Avon Borgo. so NOT anything bad. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
That book does not specify that the "hundreds of twelve- and thirteen-year-olds tried out for the part" were cisgender or that none of them were transgender. Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

whoever runs the official Samantha Smith site facebook seems to think hundreds auditioned. Samantha was 12 when it started filming in May 1985. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

PAustin4thApril1980, the problem isn't the number who auditioned (the book supports "hundreds"). The problem is you labelling them as "cisgender" when you have no idea whether they were or not. In fact, whether they were cisgender or not is not relevant. So why did you add it? Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Like i said, it's to be respectful to trans kids and not treat cis kids as the "default". I was intending to be altruistic. I now realise that I went against WP:NOTADVOCACY. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the patience to explain why this is actually disrespectful to trans people, but imagine if you had written "white" instead of "cisgender" and said that it was to be "respectful" to non-white people. I think it's probably a safe bet that in 1985 all of the actresses who auditioned for the role of a white cisgender teen were white and cisgender, but it is a really, really odd thing to highlight. More importantly, it doesn't come from the source. This is another example of you adding original research which is why you recently blocked. Mo Billings (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: Again I apologize for bringing this to you, but PAustin4thApril1980 continues to edit in a way that suggests he is unwilling or unable to edit according to policy. He added unsourced commentary to the biography of a dead actress/singer. (It was reverted by Deeday-UK with an edit summary of "unsourced and rather irrelevant anyway".) Mo Billings (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I added a statement that is no different to Aldous Huxley and C. S. Lewis's deaths being overshadowed by the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. 9/11 happening so soon after must have had an effect on the impact of Aaliyah's death. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@PAustin4thApril1980: What is your source for the statement you added? Mo Billings (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mo Billings: You don't need to apologise for bringing it to me. On the contrary, perhaps I should apologise for not responding to you the last time. I was, in fact, borderline for indef-blocking, but couldn't quite make my mind up. Your bringing yet another example of the problem was pretty well enough to push me past the borderline, and any lingering doubt there might have been would have been removed by PAustin4thApril1980's response to your message, where he used his personal assessment that it "must have had an effect..." as justification for unsourced editing. After all that has been said to him if he can say that then either he is trolling or he really is incapable of understanding the need for sources, so I have gone ahead with an indefinite block. I will not be surprised if that isn't the end of the matter, but we shall see. I find it bewildering how anyone with as much experience of editing Wikipedia can have so little understanding of such a basic principle as that a Wikipedia editor's personal judgement is not a reliable source.
By the way, you don't need to ping an editor on their own talk page, as they get a notification of your message anyway. JBW (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Mo Billings (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Adding my thanks as well, JBW. I wrote multiple replies to the "must have had an effect" statement, but I really had difficulty wording it without casting aspersions so I gave up each time. I appreciate your decisive action on the matter. It really is truly baffling behavior from an editor with that much experience. Schazjmd (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Continued vandalism"

You deleted my submission to the wikimedia commons and a draft that frankly I forgot I had and didn't know could not be in draft, you also deleted my contributions to Kirkwood because "No source", the source is their website, do some research and look for yourself instead of being a trigger happy cowboy next time. Next time instead of just spamming delete button at least fact check first. And in regards to the flag, I've seen many things on wikimedia commons that don't exist or are "hoaxes" so I assumed that It was just a place to upload images, my bad for misinterpreting it. The word "hoax" implies I was trying to fool somebody, i wasn't I just wanted to use the flag in a sandbox creation I was doing. I hope you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BryCar28 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BryCar28, and thank you for expressing your concerns. I shall try to answer some of your points.
  • I have not deleted anything from Wikimedia Commons; in fact I can't, as I am not a Commons administrator. I haven't even nominated anything you posted there for deletion, so I have no idea how you got the impression that I deleted whatever it was. If something you uploaded to Commons has been deleted and you think it was done erroneously, then you need to take it up with the Commons administrator who deleted it.
  • You are right in saying that the word "hoax" implies an intention to "fool somebody", but whether you intended to deceive or not, making fictitious pages such as John Muir Alpine International Airport is likely to mislead people into believing that it is true, so the effect is exactly the same. I am somewhat at a loss how you could have created that page without expecting that some people would believe it, but whether you did so or not makes little difference: creating pages which present fiction as fact is unacceptable. There are plenty of web sites where that kind of thing is welcome, and you may like to try editing on one of those.
  • Drafts are for preparation of pages to become articles; they are not personal playing spaces, and should not contain anything which is not intended to become an article.
  • The onus is on the editor who adds content to an article to provide a source, not on other people. It is unreasonable to expect others to search to find the source, when you must already know where you got it from, so you could easily provide a reference without having to search. (In any case, whether you agree that is unreasonable or not, it is Wikipedia policy.)
  • I see that you have restored the content that I deleted for lack of citation to a source, and you have still not provided a source. Wikipedia policy is that content removed because of a lack of citation to a source must not be restored without providing such a citation. Please do provide a citation to a source.
  • Childish name-calling such as "trigger happy cowboy" does not make the person doing it look very sensible, as well as showing an intention of being unpleasant to another person. I don't recommend it, both because it will discourage editors from taking you seriously and because it is against Wikipedia's policy on civility.

I hope that those remarks will help to clear up some of your concerns, but please feel welcome to drop me a friendly message if you have anything else you think I may be able to help you with. JBW (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Vibroacoustic Therapy

Hello JBW, Greetings! The page Vibroacoustic Therapy is create-protected. Would you please lift its restriction? I am requesting as because of this draft at AfC. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 13:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gpkp:  Done JBW (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, JBW. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Message from HistoTeam

My content removal was explained by giving a reason to it, it is not acceptable that a fake information is still on wikipedia, only because of a subjective interpretation of a particular person. Moreover I disagree with your opinion that my name suggests a collectivity; even if it is my name or not, I am certainly a single person who edits stuff, not to say that your name is not a very realistic one. Please be more objective next time. HistoTeam (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your response to my reports

I been reporting disruptive editing at AIV as long I was here, and most admins take the report and blocked the disruptive editor, my recent report is not so different then the other reports I did before. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Interesting. A few comments, though. * How many times have you made a report which does not belong on that noticeboard and been told by an administrator that it is because of your report that they took action? Whenever they have not explicitly said so it could be a case of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. * Certainly sometimes (how often, who knows?) an administrator will choose to act on a report even though it is not properly made (I have done it myself on occasions) but that doesn't justify making reports in the wrong place. * Two different administrators thanked me for the message that I posted. JBW (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The IP's edits that I reported appears to be in WP:GOODFAITH and I kinda see the editor isn't doing anything bad, but some of the edits are questionable. I now understand why you didn't see the edits as vandalism and I was overacting. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Following through

Hello James! I've provided citations from two peer reviewed academic sources (Ethics and Information Technology, and the IEP) a well regarded book on the topic of surveillance ethics, and a Tufts University paper article outlining the concerns of the community regarding the Confucian Institute and it's chilling effects on local minorities. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice: The citation from the university paper I removed. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Caught another disruptive IP hopper.

Hi, JB. At least for the past couple of months, pretty much all edits from 177.225.0.0/16 have been disruptive. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: You are right, but all recent edits, and all the edits that seem to be from that one person (as far as I can see) are in fact in the smaller range 177.225.128.0/19, so I've blocked that. I see that the same range was blocked earlier this year, but the editing looks quite different, so it seems that we have different vandals each taking a turn on the same IP range. JBW (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleting Info

IP address 137.219.201.103 is deleting huge parts of info and giving no reason for doing so on the GUN page.[14]-108.208.137.234 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I've posted a warning to the IP talk page. (You could have saved a little time by doing that yourself.) If the same happens again let me know and I'll consider whether to block the IP address from editing that article. JBW (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Problems at FCSB

The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CristiCristii is vandalising the page FCSB. Currently there is no definitive decision that the Honours don't belong to FCSB. There are ongoing processes law suits. So far the law only decided that FCSB does not hold the name of Steaua. I think CristiCristii holds several other users, clones with which he kept editing the page in his style over the past 3-4 years. Must be checked because this is annoying, one user to keep vandalising this page. Every 1 hour after I revert his vandalism, he comes back... And others are also annoyed! Same guy in my opinion and it was all explained to him numerous times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0F:301A:E400:2583:4125:14B5:DC1 (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  1. I have posted a message to the user talk page, which you will probably want to read.
  2. Please note that this is the English Wikipedia, and all contributions should be in English. Naturally I understand that if you are a native speaker of Romanian addressing another native speaker of Romanian then using Romanian is easier and more natural, but on Wikipedia there is no such thing as a private conversation. Even if your remarks are addressed to one person, other editors should be able to know what you are saying, and so you should use English.
  3. From a quick look at the editing history I couldn't see evidence that the same person has been editing before, but you no doubt know far more about it than I do, so if you can tell me some or all of the IP addresses or accounts that the person has used I will look into that. If it seems that this is a person who has been warned about the same thing before then blocking them from editing may be the best thing to do, but at present as far as I know it may be a new editor without previous knowledge of how Wikipedia works, in which case a block is not justifiable.
  4. I hope you will come back and read this message, but since your IP address has changed more than once, and is likely to change again, I have no way of directly contacting you to make sure you see this message. I'll post a message to the talk page of the IP address that you most recently used, alerting you to this message, but I can't tell whether you will see it or not. You may like to consider opening a Wikipedia account; that will certainly help other editors who wish to communicate with you, and you may in the course of time find that you get advantages from it too. JBW (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't know what to say for a subject header

Hello, my name is Rebestalic

If you're wondering how I managed to happen across you, I saw a section on Materialscientist's (my regular go-to for vandalism) talk page by yourself, and was thrilled to see that you usually reply to messages on your talk page!!!!

And as you might have inferred, yes I have a potential problem person for vandalism; the IP is 97.117.105.160. Check out these edits which I've linked here (A Warning, book)... and here (Weijia Jiang, journalist). They're a Trump supporter in a strongly Trump-leaning state (Utah). I'd appreciate it if you whooped their ass could perhaps keep an eye on this person

I wish you a colourful day! Rebestalic[leave a message....] 03:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Just for your sake, yes I will put your user page on my watchlist 😂 How do you pronounce 'Centijimbo'? I have an interest in accents and linguistics and decided to enshrine a pronunciation of Centijimbo using the International Phonetic Alphabet (yes I did read your thing on how you don't like to use opaque acronyms) on its appropriate Wikipedia page. It's still there; I'd appreciate it if you had a different pronounciation, which means I can put that in too! Rebestalic[leave a message....] 04:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Rebestalic. I've got several thoughts about the things you've said here, but at the moment I'm editing on my phone, and writing at length is awkward and fiddly, so for now here's a short answer. More to come when I get onto a computer...
I've added another warning to the IP talk page, mainly because there's vandalism as well as POV pushing. (What did someone say about acronyms?) If there's any more after that, brutal attacks measured and proportional sanctions may have to be considered. JBW (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Rebestalic here again, I've absolutely no idea who in the world you're trying to refer to when you say 'What did someone say about acronyms?' And... my gosh I love how you imitated me with the struck-through text 😂
You've certainly made my day colourful, thank you for that Rebestalic[leave a message....] 10:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rebestalic: How do I pronounce "Centijimbo"? In a broad IPA transcription I now pronounce it ˈsɛntɪˌʒɪmboʊ, but in the pronunciation with which I grew up it was different, I'm not sure but perhaps something like ˈsɛntɪˌdʒɪmbʌʊ (or at least it would have been but for the fact that the word hadn't been invented then). When I moved away from my home city to go to university I found that nobody could understand a word I was saying, so I was forced to very rapidly learn to produce something more like a standard pronunciation. (Did you notice the TLA there? (And did you notice that one?))
Your post on SlimVirgin's talk page prompted me to check the number of page watchers on her talk page. 997. Wow! Just 3 more to reach 1000! I wondered about using this account and two of my sockpuppets legitimate alternative accounts to bump it up to 1000. WP:SOCK forbids using multiple accounts for contributing to the same page, but it doesn't say anything about using multiple accounts for watchlisting the same page. It also says we shouldn't use multiple accounts for the purpose of creating an illusion of support, but does that include creating an illusion of interest in a user page? Hmm. Not sure.
Finally, perhaps I can help you out with your problem about not being able to think of a suitable subject header for this section. You could use "Don't know what to say for a subject header". JBW (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, and thank you for that reply! You seem to have extensive knowledge in IPA transcription, which flatters me. And you're right, with the WP:SOCK thing... smart
And I'm sorry, I actually don't know what TLA is short for 😂 Finally, CONGRATULATIONS for getting a message from GERDA ARENDT of all people!!!!!!!!!!! I remember deciding to annoy them sometime and they were very nice to me
Thank you again for replying! And it seems that our person 97.117.105.160 decided to delete the entire source code for their talk page, which I think is actually a really interesting idea! I mean, you can't really punish them for that
Rebestalic[leave a message....] 20:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Unsalt requests

Hi there, almost a decade ago you salted Jye Bolton. No idea what the article then was about, but there now is a notable footballer at Draft:Jye Bolton that I'd like to move to mainspace. Could you please unsalt. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this had been done by another administrator before I got there. JBW (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, Gerda, it's nice to get thanks, but I have given up trying to think out what you are thanking me for. As far as I know I haven't had any contact with you recently (and in fact we have had remarkably little contact ever, for two editors who have both been here for over a decade and built up 6 figure numbers of edits). I can't find anything in my editing history which looks as though you would obviously wish to thank me for it. Are you willing to enlighten me? JBW (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
You wished RexxS well. (I had to check myself, could also be that you said something in memory of Jerome Kohl.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I have a high respect for RexxS. That doesn't mean that I always agree with him, of course, but most often I do, and even when I don't I think he always has a reasonable point of view, and he does a lot of good work. It also turns out that a very long time ago we were pretty close neighbours, though we didn't know one another then. JBW (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
You said that well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for replying!

Hi, I am glad that you replied.

I was and have always been confused. Thanks for taking time to reply to me. This reply will further tell me, what I need to and how I need to edit in future. No editor has so far told me carried a conversation.

I have left a message in my talk page, with regard to, why and what kind of citation was required.

I am glad you help. I am hoping that you will be able to show much clarity for the previous and future ones. Sorry for making mistakes while writing, I am mobile editing.

Thank you so much, Vasudharini. Vasudharini (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Xaar plc

Hi - I cannot tell because user:Notepad9999 did not leave a proper edit summary, but I suspect that they removed the old logo because that particular logo has not been used for some time. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to update the Xaar logo as it is now the wrong one since they have rebranded. Thanks Notepad9999 (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Notepad9999 and Dormskirk: Thanks to both of you for explaining. I have restored what I hope is the right logo to the article. Notepad9999, it's a good idea to always give an edit summary providing a brief explanation of what you are doing, to avoid misunderstanding. JBW (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Created page for a Tamil film director

Hello User:JBW This is regarding the page called S. U. Arun Kumar that I'm trying to create out of my own interest. Someone had created the same page earlier but it was moved to drafts citing "undisclosed payments" to that user. Please let me know how I can go about creating this page. I am only reaching out to you as you had replied to me in the talk page of GSS, the editor who had removed the page. I hope you can help me resolve this. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayyaa (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip off, Nayyaa. I have blocked your sockpuppet account that you created to evade a block on your earlier account. JBW (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

IP to keep an eye on

Hi, JB. 137.27.62.222 evidently is a sockpuppet for 107.77.241.59; now that the latter has been rangeblocked, the former might start editing again. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Bored students

Arkansas: 165.29.0.0/16
Massachusetts: 173.76.0.0/16
–Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The first range was already blocked before I got there. The other one is more doubtful; there's quite a bit of vandalism, but probably more constructive editing, so a block isn't justifiable. I'm afraid it has to be just a case of reverting vandalism when it happens. JBW (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Nebraska: 204.234.0.0/16 –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: Yes. For the last 17 years. I found out many years ago that it's out of the question to block for that long though, so I have compromised. JBW (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Argentina (according to Materialscientist in the reason for blocking 181.97.218.75): 181.97.0.0/16 –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The deletion of all examples in Command pattern

Hi JBW, I don't understand the deletion of all examples for the design pattern Command (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_pattern). I think it's a great help to understand those concepts. All others design patterns have a lot of examples of codes too. So maybe you should remove all code examples of all design patterns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoweb01 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nicoweb01: My intention actually was to restore the article to an earlier state where an example was given in one language, as having an example in one language illustrates the concepts involved in command pattern, but adding versions in dozens of languages only provides illustrations of how those languages differ in their handling of the same concepts, which is not the topic of the article. Also having strings of examples of coding in different languages is not in line with Wikipedia's purpose; there are many other web sites which do provide that purpose. At the time I made the change, it was inconvenient for me to do the thorough checking required to do the job properly, so I made what I now see as a mistaken decision to remove the lot temporarily, and restore what was relevant when I did have a chance to do it properly. I apologise for that mistake, and I have now restored the section of the article to the state in which it previously had been.
As for what you say about "all others design patterns", if they do have similar lists of examples in numerous languages then it is very likely that they too should be pruned down, but if course I can't tell without seeing the particular articles you have in mind. CAn you direct me to some of them, so that I can review them? JBW (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sami Yusuf Page Under Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Yusuf

Dear JBW, this page is under vandalism by two users. User:HistoryofIran and User:Assem_Khidhr

Kindly have a look to the page and history of vandalism and false information they put, they are not allow to the do any changes on the page.

Thanks

83.123.81.228 (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know of your concerns. It is not immediately obvious that the edits you refer to are vandalism, but no doubt you know more about the subject than I do, so probably you can tell me why you think it's vandalism. If you do that I will look into it.
From my experience of HistoryofIran's editing over the years I would be very surprised to see vandalism from him. I know much less about Assem Khidhr, but a quick look at his editing history doesn't suggest a vandal. Nevertheless, please do let me know if you think you have valid reasons for seeing their editing as vandalism.
@HistoryofIran and Assem Khidhr: Alerting you to this message, since it concerns you. JBW (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The IP was caught removing relevant information from the article, which I reverted. That's about it. A typical case of a new IP doing, well... not the do most constructive edits. A new account has recently appeared which is kinda making the same edits, possibly belonging to the IP? [15] --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@JBW: Thanks for your consideration. I did notice their first mention, but didn't think it'd be worth replying. The hist and editing quality are pretty straightforward. The OP is propably vexed because I added, among other things, the article subject's professed religious affiliation. Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


Thank you dear user:JBW for your consideration.

If you notice this user User:HistoryofIran racistly try to add "Iranian" to the first line, if you refer to previous discussion we had on the talk page you decided to keep the "British" only there as he hold only one nationality. Also the word "Muslim" in the first line is something unnecessary and why need to mention there? I would love to refer you to this line you mentioned in the talk page.

Extended quote from Talk:Sami Yusuf collapsed

I have put some thought into this. Since an editor working on Sami Yusuf's behalf has made it clear that that editor regards Sami Yusuf as British, and not as "British-Iranian", it seems reasonable to conclude that Sami Yusuf self-identifies only as British, and whereas any question of citizenship is a matter of law, with a definite correct answer, a general description of someone's ethnic background is not so clear cut, and how he self-identifies should be given consideration. (I have a vague feeling that there is some guideline or other that supports that view, but I have no intention to spend time searching for it.) I therefore propose to replace "British-Iranian" with just "British", and to add a mention of the fact that he was born in Iran. I hope that will be a compromise that is acceptable to all: it will remove any possibility of anyone reading the description as implying dual citizenship, as desired by one party in this dispute, and at the same time will keep an indication of his origin from outside Britain, as desired by the other side. If anyone disagrees with this, then I hope they will post here explaining why, but I don't intend to defend it or argue about it. I am doing this in the hope that it will resolve the problem, but if it unfortunately doesn't then I am not going to get into edit-wars or quarrels over it.

If you see we already fixed this issue and after a time this user User:HistoryofIran try to start vandalism again.

Regarding this user User:Assem_Khidhr

If you see he used sources from REMOVED references and most of them are from dead links. These are kind of incorrect information, they don't even let us to make changes and edit them with correct links/information.

In the end, it's clearly that the page is under vandalism, is it possible to lock the page again and make it semi-protected?

Thanks

83.123.81.228 (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Im not reading all of that, but the fact that this IP calls me a racist for "adding" (I didnt, I simply restored it) Iranian shows that he has really lost the plot. HistoryofIran (talk)
@83.123.81.228: I can see quite a lot of misunderstanding in your proposal and interpretations here. First things first, Wikipedia has a solid definition of vandalism. It doesn't equate to edits that a contributor or a group of contributors are dissatisfied with, nor does it even equate to disruptive editing (See WP:VANDALISM). Maybe you've somehow missed that, but the article lede literally reads Sami Yusuf (born 21 July 1980) is an Iranian-born British Muslim singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, composer, record producer, and humanitarian. This doesn't correspond to Sami holding an Iranian citizenship as of now, which would have, indeed, been a contentious legal matter. You probably also missed the source I used for his personal details "International sensation Sami Yusuf". The Stream. 23 Dec 2011. Event occurs at 13:50, 14:15, and 15:15. Aljazeera English. You know, that's it. That's what I love. I love to bring people together. I'm an Iranian-born ethnic Azeri who grew up in England, married a German lady, and embraced Sunni Islam. That's a really interesting combination. . . . I'm not interested in politics, generally. I don't like politics, including Islamic politics.. This makes it very clear that Sami prefers to emphasize his diverse origin. In fact, as you can see in the Wikidata item Sami Yusuf, we should also point out his Azeri origin, especially that it's in direct relation to his notability, being discussed in many works he did and being officially recognized in Azerbaijan (e.g. he received an honorary award for his contribution to Azeri heritge). Likewise, pointing out that he's Muslim in the lede is conforming to MOS:CONTEXTBIO, meaning that it's only appropriate because Sami's notability is explicitly derived from his religion. For example, he first came to prominence by releasing Al-Mu'allim song about the Islamic prophet Muhammad. All of this should have actually been spared for the article's talk page, where I would have been happy to explain this without badgering JBW (talk · contribs) for no good reason. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Assem Khidhr

Yes you are correct but you made emphasis to Iran there, have a look to this edit!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sami_Yusuf&oldid=987874752

"Sami Yusuf (born 21 July 1980) is a British singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, composer, record producer, and humanitarian, born in Tehran,"

You made things more complicated here, it's also mentioned Iran there but in the end of the sentence, this is totally different with your edit.

You wanted to make the page better but seems not. What was the issue with the last edit?

Dear user:JBW you can judge as a super admin, is it possible to bring back the page to this version? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sami_Yusuf&oldid=987874752

Currently the first paragraph is totally confusing.

Thanks everyone.

83.123.81.228 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, now that the IP editor has explained their concerns, I think I can reasonably offer a few comments. @Assem Khidhr and HistoryofIran: you may or may not wish to read this.
  1. HalaW25 and IP editor: clearly you are either the same person or (perhaps less likely) two people working together. It will be helpful if you can state which of those two is the case, and if you are the same person then please stick to editing only from your account, to avoid misleading or confusing editors.
  2. At the end of my previous comments about this on the article's talk page, in April 2019, I offered a compromise solution. I wrote about it "I am doing this in the hope that it will resolve the problem, but if it unfortunately doesn't then I am not going to get into edit-wars or quarrels over it." I still don't intend to quarrel about it.
  3. I spent some considerable time on thinking out and writing my comments back then. I tried hard to make what I said clear, to avoid misunderstanding. I have re-read what I wrote then, and I can only assume that HalaW25 has not read it, as otherwise they could scarcely still be saying thing such as "Sami Yusuf does not hold any dual citizenship. He is, thus, not Iranian-British". I shall say it just once more. In English, putting two adjectives relating to countries DOES NOT mean that the person in question has dual citizenship. For example, an "Italian American" is usually a person with ONLY AMERICAN citizenship, but of Italian ancestry, not a person with dual Italian and US citizenship.
  4. Whatever HalaW25 thinks "Iranian-British" means, it is totally irrelevant, because nobody has been saying in the recent dispute that he is "Iranian-British". The dispute is about whether to refer to him as "Iranian born" or not. Since HalaW25 has repeatedly edited to remove the expression "Iranian born", they must know that is what the dispute is about, and their persisting in writing as though they think it's about the expression "Iranian-British" appears to be disingenuous.
  5. There is no question of this being vandalism, as Assem Khidhr has explained.
  6. An issue that the IP editor/HalaW25 is/are concerned about is the amount of prominence given to the fact that Sami Yusuf was born in Iran. That can only mean that their purpose is to make the article conform to a point of view, presumably for nationalist reasons. Editing to promote a point of view is not permitted, and can and will lead to being blocked from editing.
  7. HalaW25 has repeatedly removed mentions that Sami Yusuf was born in Tehran. That is nothing to do with the issues such as dual nationality. Again, I can only see that as a nationalist attempt to suppress information inimical to the editor's point of view.
  8. HalaW25 has continued to edit-war after being warned that doing so would lead to being blocked from editing. They should therefore not be surprised to find that I will block them as soon as I have posted this message.

That's it for now. JBW (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you but you didn't respond to my comments above! I don't know who the Hala is and I responsible to my activities here only! but my concern was something else, the page and information there were good since @Assem Khidhr and HistoryofIran:made changes. You can simply compare this edit with the current one. You will understand what I mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sami_Yusuf&oldid=983206917


83.123.81.228 (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)



One more thing JBW

You can see these sentences are both correct and in a same way.

Previous one: Sami Yusuf (born 21 July 1980) is a British singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, composer, record producer, and humanitarian, born in Tehran, Iran.[5]

Current one: Sami Yusuf (born 21 July 1980) is an Iranian-born British Muslim singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, composer, record producer, and humanitarian.[5]

In fact they are same, but it's totally intentional and he wants to make "Iranian" bolder there obviously. Maybe because of political reasons. That why I asked to have a look to the previous edits and current one.

Thanks

83.123.81.228 (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Names with wierd letters in the author's language

I have responded to you but on my own talk page. If you want to carry on the debate do it there. If not, move out of the way and don't interfere with my edits. Trojan Horse One (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the full explanation here. 188.31.64.124 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Above is my edit. I was auto-logged out after a time. Trojan Horse One (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Revan's gender

A user is trying to change all the "male", "he" and "his" to genderless pronouns, even though it's canon in the legacy universe that Revan is male since all the info on the page is from the legacy universe.[16]108.208.136.227 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for...

...the sanity check at User talk:Iluvalar. I was beginning to wonder if I'd slipped into a parallel universe where there are two languages that use exactly the same words to mean completely different things. I tend to think I'm reasonably good at explaining things and that I have the patience to do so, but this particular brick wall is accumulating too many of my head impressions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: That thing about "two languages that use exactly the same words to mean completely different things" is, I find, remarkably common on Wikipedia, and one of the situations where it is most common is with blocked editors requesting an unblock. Years ago my unblock decline message would have been much longer, trying to patiently explain to the editor what the problems were, but experience has taught me that when others have already explained it all more than once, explaining it once more will achieve nothing, so I don't bother. I take a very different line in cases where it seems to me that the blocked editor has not been given adequate explanation, which unfortunately I find happens all too commonly; then I do sometimes still give long walls of text trying to help the editor understand. (Sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully, but it's worth trying.) JBW (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
When it comes to explaining things, I do sometimes stop and think "How would JBW do this?" In this case I think I've now gone beyond what could reasonably be expected, but as I imposed both the topic ban and the block I felt obliged to try one more time. (Oh, and in the time I've been at Wikipedia, I really have been surprised by the number of people here who appear incapable of engaging in meta discussion.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of work update on 'Ross O'Hennessy' filmography / television

Hi,

I am not 100% up to date with how wiki works but I did notice that you removed the following update to Ross O'Hennessy filmography.

curprev 21:06, 2 December 2020‎ JBW talk contribs‎ 9,842 bytes -44‎ Unsourced, linked to a disambiguation page, and I have been unable to find any confirmation. undo

I can confirm the update has a confirmation on the 'spotlight' official actors registry of the Uk. It can be found here.

https://www.spotlight.com/interactive/cv/1/a8033/M45343.html

click on television and it is at the top of the list of credited work.

I am not sure what happens now, if you re-instate it or alter it or attach the confirmation? thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.147.17 (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
THANKS FOR SAYING I CAN STOP THE DECLINE!!! 
Powernator1324 (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

question JBW can I make my own made-up powers members of the wikipedia empire that they can use for fun?

Unblocking my partial block

Hello JBW,

In the past, I had received a partial block. Here on your talk page, you said that my indefinite partial block may be lifted after "at least a few months" among other things. We are now 6 months later and since then I had no incidents or made any ill-intentioned edits, as can be seen on my talk page or contributions. I would also like to make a "gentlemen's agreement" with you that, in the future, I will not edit the page where I got the partial block and continue overall editing without creating similar incidents or other misbehaviours. Do you consider that the conditions have been set for lifting up my partial block? --Randam (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive IP returned after block expired

Hi, JB. I reported 172.83.30.193 on the vandalism noticeboard but they're still active as of four hours ago so I'm coming to you. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

And now we have 2604:2D80:6895:4400:C984:A613:5985:B179 from the same area as 172.83.30.193 restoring edits that 172.83.30.193 made. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Officialsagarindia

A tag has been placed on User talk:Officialsagarindia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

Can you get rid of extended protection on Walt Disney page and drop it down to semi-protected? The page is safe now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4B00:F1C0:9C4B:8F78:3C27:8035 (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 09:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@QueerEcofeminist: Policy is that user talk pages are not normally deleted. I would be willing to consider making an exception if the page had no history of anything except misuse, but this one contained a valid message, and deleting it from the page history wouldn't have been helpful. The right way to deal with talk page abuse where the page also has valid content is to remove the unacceptable content, and consider whether to do one or both of posting a warning message to the editor and/or reporting for possible administrative action. On this occasion I have removed the offending content and blocked the account. Perhaps you would like to remove the speedy deletion tag from the page, if someone else hasn't done it by now. JBW (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
JBW, ohhh, the fact that, you created this usertalk page by posting a message on it and so you were notified with deletion.
that teaches me, two things I need to look at histories of user talkpages and then decided whether to remove it manually or tag it for deletion just like you suggested above. I will remember it for next time. thanks and regards. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 15:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@QueerEcofeminist: Actually, receiving this message brightened my day up a little, as I found it slightly amusing. JBW (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Justine Tung

Thank you for explaining in your close. I didn't see the draft before you deleted it, and am taking your close as meaning that it was borderline G3. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

AFD and article

Hello @JBW:, I hope you're doing well. I came across you edits. Where you deleted the article due to the Afd. That is good and you followed the wikipedia community decision, which I shall to abide. But I have a question, the afd was of two months old September 2020 [17]. I created the article around 7th or 8th of this month Hero: Gayab Mode On. Some more vandalism of yesterday [18], [19]. The series is live/broadcast is going on now. Notability concern was their back in September, few points was arise before telecast, broadcasting, when series goes on air. The principal photography is happening since November, the show is on air now since 7th of this month. I could have added numerous sources to prove notability, or I could have done spaming. But since the lockdown I'm working to help. May be you're correct, or I'm wrong. Sometimes admin do does mistake to. I believe passing a judgement over a afd of 2 month old was not the right thing. In the add their was being said of a draft which exists previously, where can I see the draft. If the draft is the same as where my mainspace article has been moved. So why am I not being able to see the history. As I'm the article creator I should have been informed, I should have nominated the article for deletion. Or I should have moved the article to draft space and submit for afc process. Thanks and sorry if I was harsh --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 02:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


For anyone else who reads this, it concerns a page which has existed under several variations of the same title, but is now at Draft:Hero – Gayab Mode On. Various versions of the page have been created and deleted, and it was draftified as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero – Gayab Mode On. JBW (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@C1K98V:
  1. My apologies for the fact that it's taken a few days for me to get round to answering. There were several reasons for that, including the fact that I preferred to wait until I had time to check the history and give a reasonably thorough answer, rather than doing a rushed job.
  2. I saw the article you created, and was unsure how to deal with it, as changing the title to get round creation protection put in place to maintain the result of a discussion wasn't a good thing to do, but on the other hand it seemed circumstances had changed, so there might well be a case for allowing re-creation of the article. While I was considering what to do, the decision was taken off my hands, because the page was moved to draft space by an editor by the user name of Praxidicae. However, the page she moved had been incorrectly created as a cut and paste move of an existing page, which you had turned into a redirect. Also, I don't remember for certain, but I think that redirect may now have led from article space to draft space, in which case it had to be removed. What I did, in fact, was merely a cleaning-up operation to correct the cut and paste move and remove the inappropriate redirect. Although what you saw was a move by me, in fact the move had been made by Praxidicae, and, as I say, I was just cleaning up. Perhaps it would have been better had I written a longer and more detailed edit summary for my move, making that clear, but I was not expecting the move to be questioned, so I didn't.
  3. I think under the circumstances probably the best thing for you to have done would have been to consult the deleting administrator, Bradv.
  4. You mention a draft, which evidently was the draft which was mentioned in the deletion discussion. There have been several moves of the various pages involved, to several different variations of the title, in both mainspace and draft space, and at least once the histories of two pages have been merged. Unfortunately, in that situation it can be horrendously difficult to trace the history, even with administrator's access to the record of deleted versions. However, as far as I can make out the article discussed for deletion seems to have been a cut and paste move of the draft in question, and the two seem to have been history-merged, so the draft in question was in fact no more than part of the history of the deleted article. It is normal for the history of a deleted article to be invisible to editors other than administrators. I am fully aware that that can be frustrating for no-administrative editors, as I went through that experience numerous times before I became an administrator. However, in this case you can easily see what the page looked like before it was deleted, as there is a copy of it at https://en.everybodywiki.com/Hero_%E2%80%93_Gayab_Mode_On.
  5. I have tried to answer your questions as best I can, but if you have any more questions you may like to consider whether they might be better addressed to Bradv and/or Praxidicae, since, as i say, my role was really just cleaning up the effects of actions which were not actually my decisions. JBW (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello @JBW:, Merry Christmas in advance, I hope you're doing well. I'm sorry for being harsh. I will abide by the wikipedia policy. Was unsure about the judgement of 2 months old afd. As I was not been able to see any discussion archive while I was working on the article now in draft space. The series is now airing live on Television and ott platform. Should I move the draft to article space, will it be a wrong move, or is it protected by admin. As I believe it is notable, whatever concern may arise. I will help out to resolve. Please guide me, show me the path. Thanks for your consideration. --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 07:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Need Help!

I hope you haven't forgot me yet! In case you have then I was that one guy who got into sock puppetry, a quarrel and all those Mistakes! Actually you may have seen that I am no longer active and just inactive like others! Well actually the thing is that I want to use this ID in another phone but I am unable to and just receive this phone like once in a while! So can you please help me by telling me how to use this ID onto another? Please just a request! Then I may be able to get back to my normal editing rate that I once had around May!! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, My problems got solved so now I am going to be active as I used to be so any piece of advice from your side!! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tylertoney Dude perfect: I haven't forgotten you, though I don't remember all the details of your case. I hadn't noticed that you'd become inactive; it's easy to not notice something that isn't happening. However, it will be good if you do return to regular editing. Sorry I didn't come along soon enough to be able to help you with your request for help, but you got it sorted out in the end, so that's OK. JBW (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks JBW!! Actually I have Returned now to my normal editing routine! Well I am going to ask you something!! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Why

Why was I named derpy penis? ESBirdnerd (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Please I want to know. ESBirdnerd (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

How on earth should I know? JBW (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) FWIW, it looks like it's something to do with this (though why they're asking you...?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, I realised that edit was what it was about, as I reverted it, as you can see here, but I'm not sure why I was supposed to know the reason for the edit. JBW (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, it was you who reverted it. At least I've done my bit in joining in the confusion ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Elemetal

Hi again, JB. Seems we have a sockpuppet with conflicts of interest editing Elemetal. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: It looks very likely, but they haven't edited since you posted a COI warning to them, so I don't think anything needs to be done unless they start up again. I have also given a gentle warning about using multiple accounts. JBW (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello JBW, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 08:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas

May you be showered with good health, wealth, peace and prosperity. Merry Christmas to you and your family!

Merry Christmas to JBW

Warm regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to a thorough admin executing his job perfectly. Merry Christmas and a prosperous new year to you and yours. Have a blast!!!! Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Weird reverse socking

A couple of weeks ago, you blocked a number of IPs [20][21][22][23] from Clonmel, Ireland, for disruptive editing, namely at Loki (comics). It now looks like that editor has registered an account (their persistent insertion of the exact same edit as the IPs is pretty obvious[24][25]), who is also doing disruptive things at other articles. I just reverted a number of unsourced edits they made across a number of other comic book articles [26][27][28][29], fixed an unsourced claim here, and have observed other problem editing around articles related to the Godfather films. Could you take a look? Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Sorry it's taken me a while to get round to answering. There's more than enough similarity between the IP editor and the account to make me think it's likely to be the same person, but I'm not yet quite convinced enough to feel that blocking would be justified. However, that is open to reconsideration, and if you spot any more signs then please feel welcome to let me know. JBW (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I wasn't sure if there were other things the IPs were doing, too, that caused you to block them, so I just wanted to put it on your radar in case there was something more serious. Grandpallama (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Grandpallama: I've reconsidered this, and blocked the account. The first time I considered this, I thought along the lines of "well, yes, that could be the same person, but then again it could be someone else with similar interests who saw the reverted editing, agreed with it, and decided to restore it, so it isn't certain". However, when I thought about it later, I realised that while that might explain a couple of coincidences, there were just too many coincidences. (Restoring exactly the same edits on not one but at least two articles, also editing some of the other articles that the IP editor had edited, and other articles very closely related, and so on and so on... many of them very small details, but they all add up.) I came back, intending to block the account after all, and found that the editor had now made yet another edit on another subject the IP editor had done, so if there had still been any lingering trace of doubt at all, it was now gone. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. JBW (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A penny for your thoughts

UTRS appeal #38828 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I've had only a quick look at this, as I have to go offline now, so I haven't done as thorough a job as I would like to of refreshing my memory about the editing history before the block. However, in this kind of situation my inclination is generally to act on an assumption of good faith and give the editor another chance, on the understanding that another block will come quickly if there's further abuse. Sometimes taking that option really does lead to the project gaining a good editor. I'll try to have a more thorough look at this when I get time, but I really don't know when that is likely to be, so if you wish to go ahead and make a decision about it, either way, please go ahead, rather than waiting for me for what may be quite a while. JBW (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Watching BattleBots. Too tired to think anyway. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Lightning. We have lightning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Well I have just seen the outcome of this. I can't say I am remotely surprised, though I still think it was worth a try. I notice, however, that although I appear in the last block log entry, in fact all I did was remove talk page access: the actual blocking admin was Drmies, but that is now irrelevant. Since your new block is for the same length as the original block (3 months) the net effect is to increase the length of the block by an amount equal to time served already, a little over a month and a half. Nevertheless, I would probably have given a longer block, on the principle that if the vandal hasn't been deterred by being blocked for a few months then they aren't likely to be deterred by another block for just a few months. Any thoughts? JBW (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Feelings. Profound disappointment and pity. Sadness. Bewilderment. Futility. Thoughts. So much trouble for so little gain. Hope it was worth that one dumb edit. I reinstated for three months 'cause it seemed as good as any other duration. There does not seem much risk of collateral damage, but you never know. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Well that's sad

I saw that you deleted the Mage & Demon Queen page. Its sad because I thought that page was pretty good. I can't vouch for the editor, of course, but I wish the page had stayed up a little longer, so I could have saved it, but now I have to start from scratch. So, that just kinda sucks. Historyday01 (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I did re-create it. Yeah, you aren't getting any holiday greetings from me, after deleting that page unnecessarily. Historyday01 (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)@Historyday01: WP:G5 is, I think, the deletion rationale. By community consensus, pages meeting WP:CSD do not require an AFD. G5's are generally deleted on sight. It is good if you recreated the page w/o content from the deleted versions, as those would pose copyright/attribution problems. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, it would have been better to start from the previous version. I can't even get the text from the previous one anyway as I'm not an admin. But, yes, it is good that the page was re-created.Historyday01 (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

IP hopping disruptive editor

Merry Christmas or whatever holiday you celebrate. One hopes 2600:8807:E4A:4B00:0:0:0:0/64 will disappear when school starts up again. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Thanks for your good wishes. Maybe it's a little late to reciprocate, but I hope you've had a good time. You may or may not be interested to learn that recently I checked the editing statistics for this page, and found that you have edited it more than twice as often as anyone else apart from me. Make of that what you will. JBW (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Group accounts and autobiographies

Also pretty obvious, don't you think? (I don't think they're really a group, though the name is.) Lemme see... I'm pretty sure there's something coming up... oh yeah, happy new year! Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC).

Hi, Bishonen, good to hear from you. Please take a happy new year for yourself, too. Now, it just may be that explicitly spelling this out could be seen as insulting your intelligence, but I didn't for one moment think it really was a group, nor did I expect anything other than a self-promotional vanity page. However, I thought it best to get some sort of warning in, and the user name was the only thing that had been done so far, so that was the only thing I could latch onto. Many administrators might have imposed a user name block, but I regard that as a mistake, for a number of reasons, most importantly because it encourages them to resurface under some totally different user name, where their unacceptable editing may go unnoticed, whereas if they are allowed to stay with their existing user name then I can watch out for anything that needs action. (Though of course there is always the risk that some other administrator will come along and spoil things by taking action herself, depriving me of the opportunity. Hmmph. Growwwl.) I suppose now we could hard-block the account, as it has both edited promotionally and continued to edit under a user name which it has been told is unacceptable, but I really don't see any point in doing that. JBW (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi again, Bishonen. I didn't check as carefully as I should have done before posting the message above. I see that the account has been blocked. I wouldn't have done that, but never mind. JBW (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
As you say, friend Not-James. I don't like to block over just the username either (unless it's obscene or whatever — a different kind of case). It just encourages them to stuff beans up their nose. Especially with the soft-block template actually suggesting they simply create a new account. Bishonen | tålk 22:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC).
  • Update re the vanity page Draft:Ariful Islam Khan, now deleted: A new user Ariful islam Apu was created an hour ago, no edits yet.[30] These guys cannot hide from Bishzilla's X-ray vision! I think prolly not block yet, even though it's obviously a sock of WizardArticleWiki. Salting the article name and draft name can wait too, or what do you say? Bishonen | tålk 22:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

Cancelled video games debate

I would like your advice on my recent edits, due to an accusation of disruptive editing and creating inappropriate pages. I am simply trying to preserve what would become potentially deleted information for which I have spent months compiling. I have examined the rules, but nothing in my activities fits into either accusation placed. So far I've been given a stern warning, but no consensus or input from other users. Also the content of my created articles meets Wikipedia content policies with sufficient sources and notability. If I'm doing anything wrong, just let me know and I will try to amend it. Thank you and happy 2021. Deltasim (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I would like to withdraw my complaint. If you need more information go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled Sega Genesis games. Thank you. Deltasim (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Moving drafts to article land

Hey JBW,

I look at my watchlist and noticed that you moved a draft to article space and then deleted the redirect. Is there some rule or reason for deleting the redirect? It certainly would leave the impression to the original authors that their article was trashed instead of promoted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: I guess you must mean Draft:Predictive engineering analytics. If so, it was a minor slip, so I've restored the redirect. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. JBW (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted an article

Hello JBW, Happy New Year. on 29 December 2020 you have deleted an article made by me "Draft:Mawlana Kabiruddin Rahmani". This article is about my Grand Father . I just want to know if I can resubmit it or not. Please do help me understand and guide me to make a proper article. Also I would like to know why is such a hurry was this article was deleted. you could have given me time to fix the errors that I made. Help me out here. Pushon007 06:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushon007 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pushon007: As you know, the article was nominated for deletion by an editor known as Onel5969, and you then moved it to draft space, perhaps in the hope of avoiding deletion. The article was full of praise and adulation of its subject, and it also has a substantial amount of personal opinion and judgement, contrary to the policy that all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia policy is that any page which serves little or no purpose other than promoting its subject may be deleted immediately. If you think that policy should be changed then you are free to seek to get it changed; however, I see my task as an administrator as being to uphold the existing policy, as long as it is policy.
Some promotional articles can be salvaged by a little editing, as would be the case with the page in question if it were just a matter of removing such adulatory terms as "great", "talented", "wise", "brilliant", and the expression of personal opinions, such as that "the biggest asset is Knowledge and Humanity". However, the problem runs much deeper than that, as the whole tenor and character of the page is a matter of impressing the reader with how noble a person the subject of the writing was, so that it would be difficult to make it acceptable without a complete rewrite from scratch. If you have taken in what I wrote to you about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline then you will also be aware that it is highly likely that you will not be the person to do that job.
My advice is that any work you put into writing about your grandfather in Wikipedia is likely to be wasted, and you would be much better off writing about him somewhere else where the kind of writing you have done is accepted, and/or writing in Wikipedia on other subjects where you do not have a personal involvement or strong personal opinions. Nevertheless, I shall restore the draft, so that if you choose not to take that advice then you can try to improve it, and then submit it for review. However, if you do decide to take that route then don't move it from draft to article yourself, and do make 100% sure that you follow the conflict of interest guideline fully.
One last point. The page fully and unambiguously qualifies for speedy deletion as promotional, and thousands of pages far less promotional than that one get deleted for that reason. Therefore, if the page remains in its present state it will sooner or later be deleted again, and very probably stay deleted. JBW (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: First of all Thankyou for restoring the article. I have understood the issues perfectly. This time I will rewrite and provide more reference as you have advised and will resubmit for review again. I will follow the conflict of interest guideline fully. I am very much obliged to you and other administrators. Thank you again and hopefully I will be able to be a better submitter gradually.

Article created by a sock

Hi JBW, quick question. If an article was created by a sockpuppet and the bulk of the content are from those sockpuppets (content consisting of OR, unreliably sourced claims, and POV claims that are not supported by the sources/references and deceptively used to pretend like they are), should the article be deleted? The specific article I'm talking about is: Legality of bestiality in the United States. It was created by the blocked sock User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast, reverted and redirected by another editor [31] because "some or most of the 'references' do not support what is written in the article", but the sock reverted and re-created the article. Once the sock was blocked, they block-evaded and continued socking to disruptively edit the article (the bulk of the deceptive and unreliably sourced content of that article comes from the sock). Do articles like this, ones created by sockpuppets and mainly edited by block-evading socks, usually stay or do they get deleted? Some1 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Some1: The short answer, I think, is that there is no answer to what "usually" happens, because this is a very unusual situation. If I had known of the situation shortly after the creation of the article I would have deleted it, whereas usually if an article has escaped deletion for several years it has by then acquired "substantial edits by others", thus disqualifying WP:CSD#G5. On this occasion, however, your comments above suggest that almost all of the content is from the original creator of the article, using various sockpuppets, even though it has been around for a long time.
What exactly does "substantial edits by others" mean? Like various other expressions used in the criteria for speedy deletion, "substantial" is not clearly defined, and has to be a matter of judgement. Usually there have either clearly been substantial edits by others or there clearly haven't, and in the minority of doubtful cases after a little checking it is usually not too difficult to come to a conclusion, but in this case there is such a large number of edits by other editors interspersed among the sockpuppet edits that it is difficult to see how much "substantial" editing there is in there. I have checked a fairly large proportion of the editing, and I have not seen any individual substantial edits which are not by either certain or likely sockpuppets, but it takes a lot of checking to be sure. (Having said that, there have been only 458 edits, which is a small number in proportion to the time the article has existed, so it isn't an impossible task, just a rather tedious one.) Also, are the suspected but unblocked accounts sockpuppets? (There are two that I know of.) Then there are your other concerns of "OR, unreliably sourced claims, and POV claims that are not supported by the sources/references", which could on their own justify deletion, irrespective of the sockpuppet issue.
I'll try to look further into this, starting with checking whether the latest alleged sockpuppet really is one, and if so following it up with other issues. However, it may take me a while to do that, so please feel free to ask for help elsewhere if I don't get back to you soon; I won't regard it as forum shopping. Also please do feel totally welcome to remind me if you don't hear from me again within a couple of days; I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I really really intend to do often get completely lost as my mind moves off uncontrollably onto other things, so I regard reminders as help, not harassment. JBW (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response; there's quite a lot I still have to learn around here so your comment was really insightful and informative. And thanks for being willing to look into this (and the SPI case). Not sure if this helps but suspected socks Gdca1 and AHC300 are both in the March 2018 archive (which unfortunately closed due to inactivity, but I think you probably already saw); Pro-Randian ([32][33]) from 2013 is also a suspected sockpuppet but is not in the archive; Dawkinsfan44 was blocked for being a sock but is not listed in the archive. (It makes me wonder if there are more blocked Latitude socks out there than what's currently in the archive.) I haven't posted this to the case page yet, but I noticed that the majority of those socks don't have userpages. The first of those socks I encountered was Plateau99 and they never had a userpage [34] even though the account was created in 2004. AHC300 also doesn't have a userpage even though that account was created in 2014, a month after the latest sock was blocked [35] (also no userpage [36]).
There's no rush or deadline, so feel free to look into all this at your own convenience; waiting for your comments is definitely better than having the SPI case closed due to inactivity (for a second time). HNY, Some1 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Li_(surname_黎) People

Information about Hainan is stated as Chinese language in the reference. It is 海南. It should be ok to link between Chinese source information to EN wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanachai.viyavuthi (talk • contribs) 05:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chanachai.viyavuthi: OK, I checked the text of the html page and found nothing supporting your edit, but I now see that there is writing in the jpeg image as well as text. JBW (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

IP range block

Hi, I see you performed a range block on the IP 2600:1002:B025:2B31:0:0:0:0/64, also using some nifty tool to revert several of their live edits. What was it specifically that prompted this action? I can't see anything linking this to any AN/ANI or SPI thread.

It's just that this editor added a whole lot of material to List of female chess players and Women in chess that I personally dislike a lot, but which other editors insist on keeping, citing WP:SOFIXIT. Most of it is sourced, but often not very well (Ariana Grande's skin tone anyone?). It's very hard to find a way forward with the (new) Women in chess article if we're forced to start from the basis of this user's random and incoherent history. Basically, nobody is motivated enough to wade through all that crap and try to shape something coherent out of it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: I was looking at edit-warring at List of female chess players. How I came to that article I don't remember. (I may possibly have been led to it by investigation of editing by new accounts, or by a link to it on some notice board or other.) In the course of doing so I noticed that someone editing from IP addresses beginning 2600:1002:b.... had made edits similar to those from the IP address 100.11.62.135, which had been blocked by Girth Summit for block evasion. Looking further I found further similarities in editing not only on that article but on other articles too, and it became clear beyond any doubt that it was the same person, so I blocked the range. (I now see that the range I blocked does not in fact cover all of the IP editing in question; evidently I didn't look as carefully as I should have done.) I thought of asking Girth Summit about his IP block on 100.11.62.135. In particular I considered asking which were the blocked account(s) and/or IP address(es) for which 100.11.62.135 was evading blocks, but I didn't, perhaps because I was short of time. He may like to comment now.
As you have probably noticed, I reverted one of the re-additions of the disputed material from List of female chess players, because I agreed with an earlier editor who thought it inappropriate in a list article. I haven't studied it carefully enough to have any opinion as to whether it is suitable for inclusion in Women in chess, and I don't intend to do so, as I have no wish to get involved there. However, I do agree that the colour of Ariana Grande's skin is irrelevant, and if there's more stuff at that level then you may be right in using the word "crap". The appeal to WP:SOFIXIT is totally off the point, because that is about being bold and making changes that you think are improvements, and there is nothing whatever there that says that the improvement you wish to make can't consist of removing content you regard as inappropriate. I can only assume that the editors who appeal to that guideline either have never read it or have failed to understand it. They appear to think SOFIXIT means "if you think content is unsuitable then improve it so that it becomes suitable, but you should never remove it", which is not only not what the guideline says, but is also nonsense.
I posted a warning on edit-warring to the editor who has been repeatedly adding the material to List of female chess players in the face of reverts from several other editors, and if I see that they have returned to doing the same then I shall consider whether to post a report at the edit-warring notice board. I see from Talk:Women in chess that you are not the only editor to have expressed concern about some of that article's content, but unless a consensus is established on that talk page that the material does or doesn't belong in the article I don't see any obvious way of resolving the dispute. JBW (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi JBW, I'm on mobile at the moment, but I will look into the reasons for that block tomorrow and get back to you. Best GirthSummit (blether) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It appears to relate to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dante8/Archive. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
MaxBrowne2, thanks, yes, that's the right one - it's Dante8. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 06:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Foreign recipients of the Legion D’Honneur

Hello, you deleted many British military veteran recipients of the Legion D’Honneur from the above article correct? I believe you cited as your reason for the deletion ‘lack of citations’ associated with each veteran? However, listed in the article is a link to the French embassy defence attache’s database which clearly lists each veteran, the year they were awarded the honour and the degree. With this in mind, could I ask you to revert your deletion please? Roland Of Yew (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: Can you give me the exact title of the article? There is no article titled Foreign recipients of the Legion D’Honneur, nor is there any article containing the word "Legion" in its title in my last 1000 edits to articles. JBW (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@JBW: Of course and thanks for the speedy response. Here is the link and here is your edit I can personally supply some of the documentation in regards to one individual, my father. However, doesn’t that come under WP:NOR? Roland Of Yew (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Roland Of Yew: OK, thanks for the link to the article, but I can't see the link to the French embassy defence attache’s database which you refer to, so perhaps you can point that out to me. However, I doubt that would be a lot of use. At best it would serve as verification for the award, but it would do nothing to establish that the recipients satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which they need to do to justify being in a list article: see Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists of people). In fact there is rarely any need for references of any kind in list articles, because the entries on the list should have suitable references in their respective articles. JBW (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@JBW: I am a little confused here, I thought that under notability/military personal the highest award is permissible ? The reason I mention that is, all Medal of Honor recipients are listed irrespective of notability....Roland Of Yew (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Retirement from Wikipedia

Due to concerns about my recent unacceptable edits for certain articles, including but not limited to those about the 2020 United States presidential election, I am announcing my retirement from Wikipedia effective January 17. J4lambert (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

A Joyous Yuletide to You!


JACKINTHEBOX • TALK is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas

--Deepfriedokra (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW/Archive_77&oldid=1045700108"