User talk:Deepfriedokra/archive 2020-02

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

undid revision[edit]

cooler full of cool-down Bocks

i don't like you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram muhammed singh silva (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. Such harshness on short acquaintance. I'm sure once you get to know me better you will actually detest me. Somany people do. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(The above in my Joachim Steuben voice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Blocked. Take this as a compliment, DFO. – bradv🍁 16:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked. Cool thing is, I've no idea what they were on about. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done[edit]

Congratulations on being a nicer person than I am. You got in with a block for 36 31 hours on Deborahannryanisgreat seconds before I was going to impose an indef block, hateful person that I am. JBW (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nicer part is debatable. Some people on this talk page seem to dislike me. At any rate, did not want to bitethenewbie. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did notice in the section above that someone wasn't altogether keen on you. And apparently someone else thought you didn't bite that person hard enough. JBW (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with most of the vandalism that comes my way. Shows I'm doing my job. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I don't have/won't ever have Magic Glasses to see past this illusion. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrickLink[edit]

Dear Deepfriedokra, I would like to write the article about BrickLink, but can't due to the protection level (insufficient edits). It seems to be protected, because the company isn't relevant enough. However, I disagree with this since the website has over 1 million users and has been aquired by LEGO themselves.[1] There is also already a French and a Dutch article about the website. Best regards, Mikalagrand (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikalagrand: Sorry, no. Due to the amount of disruption and repeated deletions, a new page on this subject will need to be drafted via WP:AfC, reviewed by them, and approved by them. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've submitted the article for review. If you would like to read it, you can find it here. Mikalagrand (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikalagrand: Oh, I'm much to tough on notability and sourcing. Better to let the regular reviewers review it. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

Others also seem to be pretty harsh, the article didn't pass. Mikalagrand (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Errm...[edit]

I see that your "semi-retired" notice at the top of this page says you are "no longer very active on Wikipedia". I see that your edit counter says that your average rate of editing so far this year is higher than all but two of the other 14 years for which your account has existed, and that the two that are higher than this year are the most recent two past years. Are you quite sure that "no longer very active" is absolutely right? JBW (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: been trying to stop at 150 edits/week. Was up to ~3000/month for a while. I am a Wikiholic . . . Besides, I just put that up after the latest nastigram from an IP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my mom was really sick off and on from 2010 to 2014. After that, it was a while before I succumbed to the old, old longing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW:@Deepfriedokra:Can I join this dicussion as it will be good for my experience. I have multiple questions for you both please do not say "Go to Teahouse" I do not want to go there. Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal question[edit]

Howdy hello DFO! When you decline appeals on UTRS, I see that you often copy them over on-wiki as well. Is there a fancy tool or script to do that, or do you do that manually? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Don't I wish. And UTRS-bot is hors de combat. I copy the decline message, open the user talk from the ticket, paste the message, go back and get the URL. Busy, but it helps me keep track. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, Alas, as I feared. Well thanks for the input, guess I'll see about poking the maintainers of UTRS bot... CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About User talk:Gautamsinghseo[edit]

Sorry about that, but I really can't remember why I forgot the talk-page message in 2010. I have lifted the editing restriction concerning their talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 June 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary AfD comment[edit]

Please see this diff. I considered ANI, but I also thought that asking an admin I had never knowingly interacted with before to take a look would be more useful. Even if the editor disagrees with the nomination that is, at best, an unusual manner of expression. Fiddle Faddle 07:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: What does that even mean? At the one level, it bears no weight in a deletion discussion. At the other, it's a personal attack. They have made some constructive edits. You might want the to clarify their meaning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The clarification is perhaps arcane, and requires either knowledge or research. Santorum is a neologism created by Dan Savage to degrade Rick Santorum, quite successful it is way, though also revolting. Felching is taking that concept one step further. As an out gay man I interpret this as an anti-gay slur (I have a banner on my user page expressing my sexuality). Equally I may be being over sensitive. Yet the rational part of me counters the oversensitivity.
Had this been placed on my own talk page I would have commented, and left it present. In a deletion discussion I think it inappropriate for me either to comment or revert it. There I propose to let it stand unless anyone else chooses to disagree. I feel that any interaction with this editor by me would be... unwise.
Certainly, though, it has no relevance in a deletion discussion, which is about whether an article conforms to policy. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a slur it will go to ANI eventually. I did warn him about incivility. Think I'll d redact that. Has not yet been receptive to feedback. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tps, they're up to no good and that's beyond the pale. ——Serial # 07:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thank you. I am content with whatever route you have chosen. You have done exactly as I hoped, which is used other eyes than mine on it. I'm old enough and ugly enough to shake slurs off. Others might not be so thick skinned. Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legerrich (talk · contribs) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the signature here (click on the username and talk page link). My !vote (because I don't get a vote): save a couple kilobytes at ANI and indef the troll now. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Glug. Gah Gasp. Coffee! Acj! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: mangled ping who could blame me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)  Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks. Your hands must've still been shaking while trying to ping ;-) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, folk, that was some interesting detective work. And such a polite block message! Fiddle Faddle 20:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right! I was thinking the same thing. DFO's one of the most polite admins. If I were an admin, my block notice would be like:
information Administrator note You have been judged and found lacking. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I feel like Sylvester Stallone descending on his jet-pack-- "You have been judged". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up[edit]

I initiated a discussion at WPANI about revdels of edits related to the killing of George Floyd. You are one of the administrators who made revdels based on BLP, connected to that set of topics.

Were some of those revdels to protect the privacy of what I referred to as the NEW NAME in the WPANI discussion?

Anyhow, even though I didn't explicitly mention you, at WPANI, I am giving you a headsup of that discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded at Special:permalink/963962842#Teachable moments. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link to related discussion at ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020[edit]

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)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

Fair enough, I just think it's better to keep a record of the way in which people commit metaphorical online suicide. – PeeJay 20:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are the only one keeping score, and removing their little trophy changes nothing in so far as their block is concerned. As someone who enjoys trolling telephone solicitors, I can tell you how savory each response is. And each trophy --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by what User:Cabayi suggested with regard to User:Riku maina, since User:Goofdawg was adding content that was practically identical to that which Riku maina had been adding until recently. – PeeJay 15:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF sock is an opportunity for a user to explain themselves, before they get blocked. It's also a precursor to SPI. That canary is already out of the cage and in the cat's belly. Riku has not edited since 6/23. MIght be forth reporting at SPI. Might be too stale for a checkuser. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Mind blocking[edit]

Mind blocking this user Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mind's been blocked for weeks. Oh.  Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
Thank you! Joeiseorioadi. (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Genuine Orthodox Church of America[edit]

A tag has been placed on Genuine Orthodox Church of America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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. DannyS712 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FreshlyBakedPie[edit]

user:FreshlyBakedPie is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

Thank you for lifting the block.Clash Jester (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lou - I'm tellin' ya ...[edit]

Who's on first .... loved it. Not many would know that ref these days. Even being old enough, it took me a second to actually read the edit ... laughed my butt off. TY for that. :-) — Ched (talk)

Folks, I got a million of 'em. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RevDelete note[edit]

Hey Deepfriedokra, I saw you deleted the edit summary for my UAA request. You might want to revdelete the edit summary and username for this edit, along with my edit summary here. Thanks in advance! -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuK3: Thanks, missed that in their contribs. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

adding content[edit]

So you took my mdorganics contributions out, then how do I add missing content that will benefit the user, since I am the president of my company and an authority on cbd oil, how is it a conflict to have my webpage as a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRoga (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little if any interest in what company representatives say about a subject. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Please read and heed WP:COI andWP:PAID --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh[edit]

That went as expected. Oh well, we’ll see what he says in his actual appeal, but yeah, doesn’t look like much has changed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He would not address the issues that led to his block in the UTRS appeal. He does not seem to want to look at those issues.Reacts badly to any mention for whatever reason. I link to ANI in unblock appeals to save others the trouble of looking. And boy, there's a lot to look through. He made no mention of the prior unblock conditions in the UTRS ticket. I sifted those out of that horrendous talk page. I will not respond to this reply or post further to his talk page as I don't want to provoke a further explosive rant. I do not think he will settle down and actually look at the reasons and take care of them. (two sighs) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

School block[edit]

Hi. I only just saw this, by accident. Nobody seems to have notified me during the discussion. Just want to say - if anyone feels I've changed your block unnecessarily, I'm sorry, but I treat every case on its merits, and I usually do the block myself if I'm the one who's deleted the article. It often seems to be the case that I delete an article, check out the user's other edits, block them, then go to inform the user only to find they have already been blocked by someone else. I suppose this must mean that other people do the block first and then delete the article. I'm not sure what everyone else was getting so worked up about. Deb (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on my SPAMU threshold due to some activism at WP:UAA where some admins have been declining reports I (and others) would have acted on. Interestingly, the activists have been declining and then another admin has been coming behind them and blocking anyway. There is a discrepancy between user name policy and blocking policy, and there seems to be some intractability involved. Not naming names 'cause I don't want to upset anyone who might have strong feelings on the disagreement. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Recently on a Zoom get-together, another admin mentioned an increase in spam during lockdown and I was not convinced at the time. However, within the last few weeks it seems to be rising very noticeably, so I'm tending to take a hard line. Deb (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editor[edit]

Hi Deepfriedokra. 2 weeks ago today you responded to my ANI report regarding Jeremykuhl's repeated unsourced edits by leaving him a message on his talk page reminding him about the importance of referencing. Clearly the final warnings, report to ANI and personal requests from admin to refrain are not working. Besides the unsourced edits there is also the issue of zero communication from their side, something required to edit here. Please could I trouble you to take a look again. Robvanvee 10:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help Deepfriedokra. Robvanvee 11:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for dealing with Endeavor Greece! I have also seen your admin work around here, and I appreciate it. Thanks! Guitarist28 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Username issue[edit]

[2]. Look at his contributions.[3] BLP violations, etc. I don't think he's going to be anything but a pain and am tempted to block. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: COuldn't nail down a clear username violation, though I doubt will be constructive. ROPE til declares self. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Hey, You unblocked this user per this UTRS ticket. Can you confirm that this ticket is actually related to the user in question? Thanks. ~ Nahid Talk 15:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NahidSultan: Which user? There is something wrong with the old UTRS ticket links. They go to the wrong users. The person that UTRS ticket seems to relate to is still blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/30502 shows declined by @Kuru: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apparently unblocked the user in question, but , as I say, there is something wrong with the UTRS database from that time. When I search by name, I get a legacy UTRS ticket from before. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. Judging by the block log and legacy UTRS ticket related to it, is it possible that the account was unblocked by mistake? ~ Nahid Talk 17:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably not --but as things sit, it's impossible for me to figure it out. I need to see the user's actual UTRS ticket. They'd have needed to make a pretty convincing argument, and I'd have sought feedback from blocking/reviewing admins. I see they edited sporadically after that, and then stopped. I'll look at I think it was Yamla's talk to see if that sheds any light. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC) This is very frustrating. I click on a UTRS link about one person and get someone else. I don't see a mention of this user on Yamla's page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem said it was ok in this thread. The UTRS link did not work-- again.

requests unblock on utrs. Has been editing constructively elsewhere. Has sworn off spam. Inclined to unblock. Consulting with blocking admins. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Hi User talk:Deepfriedokra. The above link does not work. However if you think they deserve some rope I have no objections. Just please emphasize to them that this is likely their last chance. They have a formidable block log. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NahidSultan: Is there problem I should know about? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:CentralAuth/ShahadatHossain looking at his global contribs, especially bn.wiki. I guess that persuaded me to ask Ad Orientem for permission to unblock. Wish I could see the ticket. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are taking place in multiple venues (e.x on bnwiki) about their cross-wiki COI/UPE using multiple accounts. Evidence is pretty much straightforward that is why we needed to know the circumstances about their unblock request. Thanks for looking into it. ~ Nahid Talk 12:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for attention regarding certain user accounts[edit]

Hello. I am unfamiliar on the complicated process and lengthy steps on reporting users to be blocked.

User:Mayor Vico Sotto appears to be impersonating Vico Sotto, mayor of Pasig. Additionally, another account User:The Great Honcho is similar to Mayor Vico Sotto account, as the account claims it is the official account of a certain figure, and both accounts occasionally edit two articles of two other politicians including Bong Go and Paolo Duterte as seen in their previous revisions. May I request you to kindly take the necessary actions as needed, if these accounts be blocked or not. Thank you.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I add account User:Daryl Ruiz, which seems to be a sockpuppet of the accounts above. Thanks.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MEDICOLEGAL CONSULTANT[edit]

This user edited today, ignoring your previous warning about changing their name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG ABOUT MY USING MY TITLE! STOP HARASSING ME!

B. MY TEXTUAL CHANGES CORRECT MISINFORMATION! STOP UNDOING THEM, WHICH IS IGNORANT AND HARASSING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MEDICOLEGAL CONSULTANT (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

You received two warnings on your talk page that your username is not in compliance with our WP:Username policy, one form me and one from Deepfriedokra, who is an admin. In order to edit Wikipedia, your username must be in compliance. Please go to WP:CHU and request a change of name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

for the thanks. On an unrelated note, I've always read your username as Deepfriedvodka. Do I win a fiver? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Yes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good[edit]

El_C wrote: "It's all good, Deepfriedokra." I feel that's redundant. This ol' boy knows that deep fried okra is always good, as long as you drain it a bit on some paper towels or something.

--Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look[edit]

At here and here Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Thank You Note[edit]

Thanks for your quick action on the threat message. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia safe. Zoodino (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajvar protection[edit]

Hiya, can I just check whether you meant to full protect Ajvar? It seems like the dispute was by IP/newly registered users - is there context for full protection? Best, Darren-M talk 00:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren-M:Thought that was the request at WP:RFPP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darren-M: At least one participant looks extended confirmed, so would be unfair to SP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: Could you take a look at Ajvar and see if we can get by w/o full protection? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, Thank you, makes sense. Can you check you're happy that this is a stable version though please? There are a number of errors present in the page that suggests an earlier version is possibly required. 3 obvious ones are detailed in an edit request here: Talk:Ajvar#Protected_edit_request_on_25_July_2020 Darren-M talk 01:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN ping re the above for your awareness if you're reviewing. Darren-M talk 01:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing the history now. Since Deepfriedokra has signed off for the night I may take action if I think it is warranted. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if the disruptive, nationalistic additions/removals and edit warring are all being done by IPs and new users. I do see some regular users there but they are trying to restore the longtime stable version, and I think they should be allowed to do so. I will reduce the protection to semi-protection and see if that allows the article to become stable. I will also post a note on the talk page. If the disruptive nationalism returns, OK to restore the full protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one other thing: The full protection was only for a week, and I replaced it with semi-protection for a week. But we'll see if the warring resumes at the end of that time. It may be necessary to impose semi for a longer (possibly much longer) term. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

signing off[edit]

In the words of LeVar Burton, "Nych’all". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits to look at[edit]

There are some edits to look at Special:Contributions/Hpx130. I think we might need to revdel. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

74.70.77.106[edit]

Could you plese block user:74.70.77.106 ASAP. She clearly will not stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP on Sandy Stimpson[edit]

Hi Deepfriedokra! Thank you for your great work on wiki. I saw your comment on my block request about the negative BLP on Sandy Stimpson, and I was a bit curious about how to judge such a situation. In this case, I know that poorly referenced material on BLP pages should be removed immediately. I saw the IP users edit, checked whether the removed content was well-referenced, and decided that it was, which led me to reverting the removal. Clearly you don't agree, so I want to learn what to do better next time. What was wrong in my assumptions/reasoning? What did I miss? Looking forward to hearing from you, Pyrite Pro (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrite Pro: Thanks for your note. Negative BLP must be approached cautiously, even if sourced.. This content was not even about the subject. Once such content is challenged, it should not be restored without consensus. I know others are more open to negative BLP content than I. I will never willingly/knowingly protect such content, and if I am to err, it will be on the side of its removal. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP on Sandy Stimpson[edit]

Hi! I noticed you reverted edits by the IP that was spamming the Sandy Stimpson page (and saw the section above from another editor). Although I can see why outwardly this looks like a BLP issue, there was a deleted section on the talk page that explained the relevance to the article and why it was originally added. I agree the paragraph could be written better, but I do find it is relevant to the article as the subject responded as the Mayor of Mobile to the incident. This reference is broken on the talk page, but this is the updated URL: Alabama mayor Sandy Stimpson's statement on son's arrest for impersonating officer. I'll bring it up on the talk page to honor your edit comment, but am concerned about spam given the recent and ongoing vandalism on the page (which has impacted more than just this paragraph). Thanks for looking out! :) --Marx01 Tell me about it 12:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC) '@Marx01: Content discussion should take place on article talk. If there is spam, please remove it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 ATL[edit]

Hey, I was just wondering if you could take a look at 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. I left a request at the page protection page a while ago and users are still disagreeing on content. Likely will flare up in about half an hour as the next advisory gets issued. NoahTalk 23:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Made me dizzy. Can't figure out what is what. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well... now he/she is maing threats. NoahTalk 01:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: OMG! Get out!. I blocked indef 'cause unblocking did not work out (as you might have noticed). Dig this-- I was going to ask you to mentor/guide! Damn! Guess not. SMDH. Sorry for the trouble. I should have blocked indef from the start. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Darkwind protected the page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my issue... I was just coming here to report them for abusing their TPA to make threats against the original blocking admin, CycloneBiskit. NoahTalk 10:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: ??I Thought I was the original blocking admin. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, so. Cb Reblocked after I {foolishly} unblocked.Then I indeffed as I should have done to begin with. I'm letting that mouthiness pass as post block bravado and immaturity. (You see a lot of the former and the latter is an extra bonus.) If they ever request unblock, that'll weigh against unblocking. I think if certain other users stay off their talk page, they'll settle down. The invite to try to mentor them is still open, if you think you can. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a renamer...[edit]

...Could I please ask you to rename User talk:ChangeNOW Summit? The have indicated the new username in their unblock request Chelmi22). Salvio 16:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Whenever I rename someone, I want to solemnly intone, "It is done!" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I:'d go for "henceforth you shall be known as...", myself. Anyway, Thank you. See you around. Salvio 16:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[4] EEng 05:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"[edit]

Why was my edit reverted on a page which was then semi-protected due to "vandalism"? I'm not vandalising, I'm simply trying to tell the truth. --Mazydinner (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." The content you removed was. The content you added is nationalistic posturing. Please stop. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this has WP:DENY written all over it. El_C 03:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mazydinner: Also, yours was not the only edit that was disruptive. There were edits from users who were not logged in. Looks like an orchestrated campaign. Please be careful, you've gotten off on the wrong foot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I think if we expect new users to follow our rules we must teach them and WP:AGF. @Mazydinner:, we won't have anymore WP:NOTHERE behavior from you, will we?~
Sorry, but I think you are on the wrong end of WP:PACT. Oh well. El_C 03:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Well if she persists and I'm not around to show her the door, I'm sure there's already a line of the willing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

???? I am confused, but I'm sorry for making edits without liking proper sources. I need to do my research and make sure I'm making correct edits. Mazydinner (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide denial is when Turks and other groups come to tell the truth he Armenians don't want to hear, the fact that The Armenian genocide is simply not true. Sure, sure. El_C 03:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Turkish so that's really what I was told all of my life. I'm sorry, In the future I'll try to AVOID editing articles I may have bias about. Mazydinner (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

What did I call that? TBH, "claptrap" is apt. Oh, yes--"nationalistic posturing". We've seen this all before. We'll see it again. I should geolocate those IP's. Might be interesting. OK, Turkish nationalistic claptrap. That's Turkey's standard line. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to do anything wrong.... also isn't Wikipedia blocked in Turkey? Again I apologize. Mazydinner (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mazydinner: Almost forgot, Armenian Genocide denial and anything pertaining to the Armenian Genocide are not good places for a new editor to start. There are complex issues surrounding it, and, as you have seen, it is easy to stumble into problems related to the complexities. You might wish to learn Wikipedia by editing other areas as well as reading and rereading the linked pages from your welcome The tutorial may be useful as well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For my edification[edit]

You mentioned here that demanding to know someone's caste is so inappropriate a question that I cannot begin to explain. I don't know a ton about the caste system and the rules surrounding it (other than "drop GS/Caste notices on anyone who is changing them and block if needed"), what makes that a super-inappropriate question? I can tell from context that it's not exactly a friendly inquiry. (And yes, I realize that you said you can't begin to explain - but I'm asking nicely anyway :)) GeneralNotability (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's rude. even more, it's like racist. In the context, even more so. It's trying to discount their point of view based on caste, so it's also a personal attack. And incivil. I know what to compare it to-- this revdel'd dismissal of an editor's opinion based on race I don't know much about caste either, and I might be wrong, but from what I've learned watching Sitush's talk page, that's all I got.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: forgot to ping. Watching Jeopardy. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All righty then, that all makes sense. Thank you! GeneralNotability (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBreak[edit]

Been busy this week. I'll try to stay away today and will possibly resume Sat night while I'm at work. May or may not answer before Tuesday. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020[edit]

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)[reply]

Ming Zhu[edit]

It was brought to my attention that I had previously returned this article to a redirect and protected (my talk page for info, and redirect's history for gory detail). I have done it again, and a ping as you have protected it at one point. I have directed the primary contributor to create a draft article. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: ^^^ FYI — billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorrym I'm at work and stealing a moment here and there for this. I can't look right now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 August 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to locate articles on News Bank[edit]

Hello,
I was concerned that you may need some assistance in location the news articles mentioned in the discussion on Talk:Jenny Durkan. So I am compiling detailed instructions:
1) Get access to a computer, cellular telephone or other device with access to the world wide web.
2) Turn the computer, cellular phone or device on by locating the on button and press down on it.
3) Wait for the computer, cellular telephone or devise to full turn on. If a login is required, use the alphanumerical keypad to enter in your password where the password is blank.
4) Once you have full access to the computer, cellular telephone or devise, locate the icon that will give you full access to the world wide web (internet). This icon may be called Safari, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc. Or it may simply be a blank white bar with the google logo near it.
5) Once you are "logged in" to the world wide web, find the url bar. In this bar type in "https://www.newsbank.com/" . This will take you to the News Bank website.
6) On the webpage you will see a tab that says "Log in through your library". Click on that link.
7) You will now see a new webpage. Click on the green tab that says "Login to NewsBank Resources"
8) A login username and password will appear. If you have access to NewsBank in this manner, type in your username and password and skip ahead to step number 13. If you cannot, go to step number 9.
9) Go to the website of your local library. For example https://www.spl.org/ (which is the example being used here).
10) Click on the "Online Resources" tab, which will produce a drop down menu. In that menu click on "Newspapers and Magazines".
11) Scroll down to the "Seattle Times (1895-current)" tab and click on it.
12) A new webpage will appear with login username and password prompts. Use your own personal library card and pin number to log in, but do not share those numbers with anyone.
13) You now have access to News Bank. A white bar will appear in the middle of the screen. Click on it and type in whatever you would like to read, then click "Search". For example the name of an article "Opening accounts clash at trial of police officer" or the name of the journalist "Diane Brooks" or perhaps "Robert Eric Whidbey".
14)Read the article. Then repeat the process from step 13 for all of the other articles.
15) Go to "Talk:Jenny Durkan" and share what you have discovered.
I hope that these instructions are thorough and helpful. Please share with Usertalk:Drmies since I do not have access. And don't forget Wikipedia:Wikipedia should be fun. Cheers.--174.21.174.34 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I really have no interest in that page. You should discuss wit people that edit the thing on the talk page. Also, this formatting is almost impossible for me to read. But thanks for the thought. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no. If I edit the article then I become WP:INVOLVED. My only concern was to stop the disruption caused by adding back of challenged content in a BLP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the IP is completely missing the point. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hate content disputes. I generally just don't care unless it's challenged negative BLP content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably continue this on Talk:Jenny Durkan, but I do not understand. You made very bold statements about the content in the article being fabricated, yet you refuse to verify your own statements. Wait, are you...are you....psychic after all. Oh god, stay far away from that memory about the Saint Bernard when I was 22. I was drunk, don't look at it.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more eyes. Posted requests to various WikiProjects. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. And when the section is found to have zero fabrications or lies, will you apologize?--174.21.179.79 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC) You're guaranteed to get a shiny new barnstar if you do apologize. And I mean that.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do so apologise. Thank you for your patience and the great efforts you have made to clarify all of this. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2020 (UT)

PS. There has been another development that will help in your discussion of that page, One that may evoke a number of emotions. Wikipedia should be fun to play. But someone was got caught cheating and won't bother you anymore. PS Wikipedia has no sense of humor which we are aware of. --{Men In Black) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good god things can get nerdy around here. Alright. I'm way too tired tonight, but my intentions are to ask one more time what the specific objections to reinstating the deleted content are and attempt to get consensus on the articles Talk Page. I also plan to reinstate the other recently deleted content. I may eventually go back to the Martin Durkan article and continue expanding it, but not right now. I also have a plan to create a page about a local Seattle-area homeless advocacy organizations which, all cards on the table, will both be fully sourced as always and, yes, may be seen as critical of certain businesses, politicians, etc who attempted to prevent this organization from doing their work in the mid-1990s. Just being upfront.
Also, a woman bursts into her home in a frenzy of excitement and says to her husband "Honey, you will never believe it. Pack your bags, I just won the lottery for $100 million." And the husband says "Oh my god, I don't believe it. But why am I packing my bags? Where are we going?" And the wife says "I don't care where you go, just pack your bags and get out of here."--174.21.179.79 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I posted requests on all the wikiprojects and got no input at all. That's the sad state of Wikipedia. Time frame-- you risk reversion if you do not have a consensus to add back. If no one responds from the WP's, you might ask at WP:BLPN, providing a brief precis supported by dif's and reasons based on policies. I would not include that content back, if for no other reason, than the reasons mentioned here. I have no interest in the page. I stated my opinions, and then detached. It might interest you to know that your nemesis on that page has been Judge Dredded for what I consider a heinous offence. One of the top five, if anyone is making a list. Glad to hear back from you. I was starting to wonder. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: out of curiosity, can IP bans on wikipedia be detected by internet providers in some way? Causing some sort of bot to automatically change the address? I'm a cultural nerd, not a tech nerd so I honestly don't know.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(chuckle) I wouldn't be surprised. However, WP:BEANS applies. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could the death of Wilford Brimley have something to do with it? I've always had a gut feeling that he was the keeper of the light, so I fear that now that he's gone we may fall into a dark time in history.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sad news, that. sic transit gloria mundi. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I lost my virginity to Wilford Brimley. At least he said he was Wilford Brimley. Huh. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure Wilford Brimley would have had $20 to his name and would not have dined and dashed. Hmmm. Food for thought. Not trying to dox myself here, of course.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Buckby[edit]

Hi Deepfriedokra, i ask you a help. I saw that few days ago you, correctly, have protected the wiki page of Jack Buckby and removed the word Far-right. So there are a few idiots ( i think not impartial but politically ideologized) who continue to add far-right in the page of Jack Buckby. i tried to explain them that Jack Buckby is not anymore involved in far-right and also that he wrote a book to explain this, but it seems that these ideologized need to have an enemy and need to call Buckby extremist even if he is not. I ask you, if is possible, to re-protect the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.96.241 (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but. Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarterialScientist[edit]

Please revoke talk page access on User talk:MarterialScientist. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already globally locked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested with disruptive user[edit]

Hello I've been trying all day to get someone to look at the disruptive user making unsourced claims at Bengali–Assamese script, while pushing a narrative, repeatedly undoing the reversals of his unsourced claims. This user undid our reverts 6 times and ignores all warnings given to him. My report isn't being processed for some reason and I've been busy with this for hours while the user can undo my revert in 0.1 second. Thanks. Glennznl (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping request[edit]

Greetings, thanks for your recent comments in the ANI I filed. It's closed now, but if I may be so bold, would you please delete the first copy of your "shock monkey" remark? It somehow appears in the middle of the OP (first collapsed bubble). The original diff is here This only matters, a little, in event the case somehow gets reviewed by the ARBS or the community, perhaps in an appeal or unblock request from RTG, and if that happens, your attention to this detail will make for a cleaner read by the reviewers. My apologies for taking time on what is probably a trivial detail for the archives only. Have a great day! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: As monkey shock visitors, comment relevant to thread. As thread now closed, may be best to not alter. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could use WP:REDACT if you're truly worried about that. In the future, per WP:TPG and Help:Talk_pages#Replying_to_an_existing_thread, please do not embed your own comments in the middle of other people's comments. Instead, add and indent below their closing signature. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of my probation[edit]

You set some standards that I should follow, after outlining the conditions for my reprieve from being blocked, and it has been 6 months since then, the time you set for my evaluation, I kindly ask a review of the said evaluation and that may I request some further notes and tips on what I should and should not do. Thank You.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rene_Bascos_Sarabia_Jr.#unblock_discussion

--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen:Hello. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: I see good progress and receptiveness of feedback, but also a few lapses. Awaiting Bish, but I think we may need to continue at east some of the conditions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, young Fritter. I'm looking at the conditions we/you set for Rene to be unblocked here: article creation via AfC; no copy pastes (meaning, I presume, no copyright violations, and no copy-pasted references from other articles without first checking if they're useful to the article being edited?); 0RR; zero tolerance on incivility; zero tolerance on making edits not supported by the source; no image uploads; no stilted/POV language; be careful to indent properly. I'm actually quite concerned by the warnings he's been getting on his page about unsourced edits and unreliable sources throughout these six months, especially here. For a content contributor such as Rene, the sourcing issue is just so central. I think we could remove the other conditions, but, Rene, it's very worrying that you're still having so much difficulty with sourcing. If I see further well-grounded complaints about it, I think we should restore the indefinite block. Of course using reliable sources isn't merely one of your unblock conditions, it's basic on Wikipedia for all contributors. I'm pinging Chipmunkdavis, who has posted repeatedly on your page, and also Doug Weller, to see if they have any comment.
But apart from the important sourcing issue, I think we could remove the other specific conditions. Though I should ask DeepFried: what was the problem with image uploads? Does that condition need to be kept in place? Bishonen | tålk 20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: 1) Agreed. 2) There were copyvio's, but I do not recall how recently. TBH, I don't upload images I did not shoot myself. It's too easy to get the rationale wrong for fair use or whatever. We might want to keep a restriction on images not shot with user's own camera in his own hands. Looking forward to more input. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question though, what about graphics designed from me by scratch and images wherein I have written consent from the author that allow me to use them in Wikipedia? An author and historian tasked me to use pictures from her book and also design some graphics for her. Is it ok for me to upload pictures from her book and design graphics from scratch? Here's our email conversation.
https://i.imgur.com/u3bT6h1.png ----Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the author has to explicitly release the images under a free licence, which means they can be used and adapted by anyone (not just Wikipedia) for any purpose with no prior consent so long as attribution is given. This is laid out at Wikipedia:Image use policy. CMD (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, do not post someone else's email online. I suggest you delete that imgur picture. There is a specific process for forwarding author consent on commons if that become necessary. CMD (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry I edited out the emails from the picture now, only our conversation remained.---Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was not around for the block and unblock discussions, but from my reading most of the conditions are extrapolations from policy that would apply to normal editing anyway. In terms of evaluation, the issues I have raised on Rene's talkpage have related to "Absolutely no copy pastes" and "Zero tolerance on making edits not supported by the source". I would say however that I have had no issues regarding the two conditions mentioning civility. CMD (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As CMD says, "Absolutely no copy pastes" and "Zero tolerance on making edits not supported by the source" - both conditions have been violated, and I have no confidence in this editor being able to follow the last one. I hadn't noticed the earlier block and unblock. The indefinite block should be restored. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have only violated it unconsciously since I used a previous version of a page to reinsert the sources from a previous version thinking the source was still valid. Likewise, the article talk page mentioned previously that wherein users said that its not supported by the source, concerning that, is actually a verbatim quotation from a book that I suddenly lost access to, hence didn't write attribution, due to COVID-19 closing down my local library and out of the 8 conditions I was tasked to fulfill I fulfilled 6 out of 8.
1. And out of the Any article creation via AfC. <----- Fufilled
2. Absolutely no copy pastes. <----- (Backtracked because I used sources from an older version of an article)
3. 0RR-- if you are reverted, you must not revert in turn and you must immediately discuss the matter in a civil manner. <----- Fulfilled
4. Zero tolerance on incivility. Please do not accuse other editors of stalking you, of not acting in in good faith| in reverting you or disagreeing with you, <----- Fulfilled
5. Zero tolerance on making edits not supported by the source. <---- (Backtracked because COVID closed our library and prevented me from attributing)
6. No image uploads-- none. <---- Fullfilled
7. No stilted language/non NPOV e.g. "that arose to fight for justice against the genocidal Mongols" or "Added damming evidence against Mayweather.".<----Fulfilled
8. When replying in a discussion, please be careful to indent properly. <---- Fulfilled
I think 6/8 is a passing grade, and anyway, if there are serious problems with me, you can always talk to me about it or bring the issue to arbitration.---Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. My greatest concern is if there has been the inclusion of material copyrighted elsewhere. I thought I was quite clear on that point. And this is not a pass-fail exam with a low pass bar. Fail is anything below 100%. So, I cannot see removing the restriction at this time. With an admonition to seek full compliance as a requirement for removal of restrictions. I note Doug Weller is Condition 0 on the block button. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite alarmed about Rene's comment about "a passing grade". Is it meant as a joke, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.? If all eight points were of equal weight, it might be a "passing grade", but the sourcing issues are much, much more important than, say, indentation. Do you really not see that? From yourself, one would hope, but if not, do you still not see it from my comment above, where I say "the sourcing issue is just so central"... "the important sourcing issue", and so on. I must say I'm worried about your Wikipedian competence, both from this particular comment, and from the sourcing problems you've been displaying during these probationary six months. You seem to take all this quite lightly — "if there are serious problems with me, you can always talk to me about it"..? There are serious problems, and that's why you were blocked. The problems seem to persist. You don't know what arbitration is for — that's OK, I'm sure many users don't know that. It's not for this kind of thing, though. This is an admin thing, and several admins are trying to decide it. DeepFried, I'm inclined to agree with Doug Weller about reinstating the indefinite block. Unless you think we should return to AN for another round there? Bishonen | tålk 14:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I increasing feel frustration with the drama boards. If Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr wants to try his luck there, OK, sure. My actions are imminently reviewable. Actually, with 2 admins condition 0 and condition 1 on the block button, and the third shrugging, it might be his best bet. However from my experience. recidivists do not do well in appealing conditions they have been violating. More dramaz to litte purpose. tschau. I have a 'possum to persuade. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't been recedivicing, my main original block was due mostly to synthesis and original content, that has not happened ever since. Notice that this time, the main issue is about attribution, not synthesis and original research.---Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm amendable for an extension of my probation, it seems I haven't learned my lesson enough. This time, there will be no more sourcing issues and that will be permanent from thence on.----Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Spanish?[edit]

Saw this. Mind telling me what it means?Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Synoman Barris: Salus populi suprema lex esto --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, Now I get it. Thanks! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear deeofrieddorka[edit]

I know I call you Fritter, but that's really a term of affection. Some people call you deeofrieddorka.[5] Bishonen | tålk 12:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Welp, that's better than deepfriedpakora . And, my dear Bish, TBH, if I am "young" to you-- oh, my! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i see that sock has been washed, dried, neatly rolled, and put back in its drawer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Busy[edit]

For some reason, the plumber refuses to fix the plumbing problem till I fix the opossum problem. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update. There is no opossum, only Zuul! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on that. Yikes. You must have very refreshing outdoors outside your house. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock by Bot[edit]

Hello, I was autoblocked just now while editing because my IP address was recently used by "SATGURU MAHARAJ JI".

I have no idea about this. I am been blocked for something I did not do.

I have been editing for years and have never shared my device with anyone.

Please look into it and unblock me. Livingstone Imonitie (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Livingstone Imonitie: Well, obviously you are not blocked as you edited here. Sometimes internet providers share and reuse IP's. My cellphone's IP is currently blocked.The block I placed on SATGURU MAHARAJ JI does not affect other logged in users. It does prevent editing by the IP and it prevents account creation. Sorry for any inconvenience if you were attempting to edit not logged in. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

Sir, I was blocked on my first account named User:Vanished user 12345678 on uploading File:Hamza Ali Abbasi.jpg from bad Flickr account which I did not know that the account was blacklisted and I found that image as free licensed. I was blocken mistakenly on changing my username after that. I did not know even a single thing about Amir Khan who he is and where he came from. I changed my username to leave Wikipedia before uploading that file but I changed my decision. I am taking a faithful oath and promise that I will do not do like this again mistakenly. If you feel any misuse again feel free to block me again but please I am tired of trying again and again on appealing my block on utrs. I also admit that both accounts are mine and I want to made my this account as my alternative one. Thanking you in anticipation. Sir please please as I mentioned I will assure all my efforts to make constructive edits and as I mentioned if you feel any misuse you can block me again. You can view my contributions on wikimedia commons as my second account is not blocked there. And I will also assure my commitment that I am using both accounts thanking you again. If I was not a faithful editor I did not contact any admin. And I assure again that I will not harm Wikipedia policies again.Renamed user 3298724928 (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salwiki84[edit]

Wanted to run this by you. The edit I rev-del'd was pretty heinous, but it also was well over a year ago. Not sure about a block, as not all of their edits are poor either, though they can be contentious. Saw you commented, what's your thoughts? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:@RickinBaltimore:I would like to hear back from them. If they've been editing constructively since that (only warning worthy) edit, then we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they just had a bad day. Maybe real life torqued them off beyond tolerances. TBH, I'd have discussed with them before starting an ANI thread. The vandal warning they received is wholly inappropriate. This was obviously a good faith edit based on personal knowledge/opinion. So an explanation as to why the edit was (putatively) incorrect should have been offered. It looks like they make a lot of opinion based edits and their tone is a bit strident. These may or may not be educable edits, but it is best to explain why an edit is wrong rather than offering (high-handed) threats. @Salwiki84:, would like to hear back from you, but it looks like you go some time between edits. I think can leave some education on their talk page, ask them to contact one of us about it all, and close the thread as "response pending". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deleting my page - why?[edit]

Hi,

I was writing about this new cuisine discovered in Copenhagen and you happened to delete my page almost instantly - why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicthai (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magicthai, erm because you created it as a Template. Please read Help:Template. Please slow down and take your time to understand the project. Glen (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Magicthai, additionally it was purely promotional. Even in draft or article space it would've been deleted. I'll add some info to your talk page. Glen (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
@Magicthai: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia, the world's largest free-content encyclopedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, subjects must me notability requirements like WP:GNG. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking.". Another problem with Template:Atlantian cuisine is that it was created in WP:TEMPLATE space. Please use the WP:AFC process for further article creation. As noted above, the page was unambiguously promotional. Please see User:deepfriedokra/g11 for my usual deletion message for G11. (Not sure why I left that template before. It was the wrong one.) Hope this helps. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a page created?[edit]

I tried to create a page about 1 Million Women, but it was rejectedause it wasn't an original article.

Could I ask for a Wikipedian to create one for me and 1 for other women around the world?

https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toni Massari (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toni Massari: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia, the world's largest free content encyclopedia.. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must meet notability requirements such as WP:GNG and WP:CORP.. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Please use the WP:AfC process to create an article if the subject meets notability requirements and if there is significant coverage in reliable sources. The web pages of subjects cannot generally be used to source encyclopedia articles as they are not independent of the subject. Alternatively, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Hope this helps --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hello, Deepfriedokra, thank you for cleaning the article Icon Commerce College. I saw the article and found that the almost the entire text was copy pasted from the college's website, so i had proposed for its speedy deletion. --Rook6 Let's Talk 07:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC) friedokra]] (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request change of protection level[edit]

Feel free to punt me over to RFPP but I wanted to get your opinion on this. At Motu Patlu there are a high number of IP edits that are difficult to tell if they are constructive or not. One editor has been doing well of keeping plot point nonsense out, but I wonder if a good long period semi-protection would be more appropriate? Virtually all IP edits have been crufty and overwhelming to pending changes patrollers (I know, I've been getting sick of the same ol' cruft). Thanks, and again I will hit RFPP if you would prefer that venue. Best regards, Jip Orlando (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much obliged. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello, I am User:Lazy-restless, my UTRS has been banned, what I have to do to make a request? rmv self outing 17:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, as you have never addressed the reason for your block and have now evaded your block. Try back 6 months from today. And, please, address the reasons for your block, O.K.? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look[edit]

Hello D. After taking a brief nap on the lovely chaise lounge :-) I would ask you to take a look at the last two edits on DJJ's talk page. Are they eligible for RD? I know I wouldn't want them in the history if they had happened on my page but I also know that I don't know all the ins and outs of R/D. I'm hoping it stops but I will file a WP:RFPP if it doesn't. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Malcolmxl5 zapped them. Best regards and have a nice week. MarnetteD|Talk 01:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it[edit]

[6]? EEng 19:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article[edit]

Hello DFO, I recently made a request for this page to be protected but it isn’t. A lot of IP editors have been changing information on the article until I cant determine which is the last good (since I also don’t have knowledge of the subject). Can you please address this issue. Best regards ( this time I won’t include the word “mind”) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou![edit]

Hey Deepfriedokra,

Thanks for welcoming me, I try to be neutral as possible and help Wikipedia on topics I have the right information of. MixedButHumann is not my account nor do I cooperate with him.H0llande (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skiyomi UTRS ban[edit]

Hi, Skiyomi is asking for their UTRS ban to be removed here. I'm not a sysop so I thought I probably should ask one before closing it. Do you (or any other UTRS tooladmins) want to take any action or should I just close that issue? – Majavah talk · edits 05:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC

@Majavah: Can you see why she was globally blocked? Can you see her block log? Close and block from Github if you can. If you don't, well, I tried to warn you. She lost UTRS because she kept doing the same things with new socks and then would make another ineffectual appeal at UTRS. Many times via many accounts. This may be what prompted this latest request. Her last comment was Skiyomi 2020-07-16 00:39:31 But now that I think about it, I guess maybe I should wait a bit longer before trying to get my block lifted. I'll try again in a few months (like in November).. Further socking pushed the date out to January. Allowing her access to UTRS in January is overly generous. If she has socked further, then it pushes it out further still. She appealed to ArbCom. Did not work out. Check user found she socked in July, and she knows she cannot appeal before January.
I think you can see her block log, which does not actually come close to describing the problem. She's had five declines on UTRS as this user name. That does not count the other user names she has used to appeal at UTRS.
Didn't know was Github was for appealing blocks. Thought it was for technical issues. In the future, you should probably ignore requests like ths. We don't deny talk page access without strong reasons, and we don't block UTRS access without strong reasons. She was blocked to stop her disruptive appeals, and here we are again. She says the same thing here that she says in all her appeals, without actually addressing the posting of pornograhy under this account and her sock accounts. I really want to edit Wikipedia again? I'll bet. Some of what she got blocked for was revdel'd or oversighted. It was that bad. Thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything on UTRS and Amanda isn't available, that's why I asked you about this. Didn't know was Github was for appealing blocks [...] In the future, you should probably ignore requests like ths It really shouldn't, I just don't want to do policy decisions as a non-sysop, who knows what is controversial and what isn't. Ignoring everything in the future sounds like a plan, thanks. – Majavah talk · edits 07:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Majavah: Sorry Skiyomi put you though this. She sounds so sincere. And it feels like she's gazing up at me and batting her eyes. (shudder) She's really quite determined you know. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Majavah: Just tell her/them (there will be more) that it's beyond your remit and direct them to Special:EmailUser/Arbitration_Committee. Give the ARBs something tl do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

addendum Just got an email from someone purporting to be she, Supports my theory above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Dooley Car Rental[edit]

This is regrading the page of Dooley Car Rentals. Would you mind me telling what was the promotional content there. there was nothing promotional. Please help me and tell me what wrong with that page.

@Gaurav0853: The whole thing reads like ad copy. Phrases like " stretches across Ireland," "celebrating 20 years of operation," and " announced that they would be taking over " stand out. Please feel free to appeal at WP:DRV. Perhaps they will decide to restore it. The first paragraph might be salvageable. The iteration I deleted was an improvement over the one deleted by Jimfbleak. Courtesy ping Praxidicae Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will strongly oppose any attempts to overturn this at AFD. It's pretty clear we're being duped by a paid editor. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: LOL. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey![edit]

Who you calling annoying? I prefer to think of myself as a constructively motivating irritation. EEng 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: And you do it so well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Like sands under an oyster's shell. . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For a moment there I thought you was gonna say "... under someone's bathing suit." EEng 03:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stealing this line the next time someone complains about me running my mouth during meetings. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a story about my early career as an irritant. When I was in high school there was a lot of controversy about local school matters, and I frequently spoke at school board meetings. One evening I gave a presentaiton (in the form of a parable an allegory, as I recall) that must have really got under the skin of one of the members of the board, because when I was done he said something to me that you would not normally expect to hear an elected official say to a young person in public. I responded with the grace and aplomb that my esteemed fellow editors here at the English Wikipedia have so come to expect from me, and after a further vigorous exchange of views the chair stepped in to impose a cease-fire. The next day's headline was, "Lively Schools Meeting" with the subhead "But no erasers thrown".
Some days afterward my high school principal (who, I'll just mention in passing, kept a tarantula in his office named Harriet) told me that the superintendent and one of the assistant superintendents had called to ask if he could influence me to be "less vocal" at board meetings. "I told them (a) I don't want him to be less vocal; (b) I couldn't get him to be less vocal even if I wanted to; and (c) he's smarter than both of you put together so if you'd shut up and listen you might learn something." The board did eventually adopt the resolution I had been pushing and that particular member of the board later wrote me an absolutely ripping college recommendation, so you see everyone comes around eventually – it's just a matter of time. EEng 03:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, what was the resolution for? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A resolution on budget priorities. Plenty of people had similar ideas but I forced the issue into the debate with my patented out-of-the-mouths-of-babes shtick. I remember one board member saying, "Pandora's box has just been opened." EEng 10:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

Complement of the day to you.i hope you are doing your best to stay safe ? i write in response to a speedy deletion tag you placed on Albanny Technologies i wish to kindly inform you that the deletion has been contested with valid reasons.please kindly check and remove the Tag. Thanks in anticipation (Kingpery (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Kingpery: I think it would be better for the reviewing admin to look. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingpery: I see more promotional content than I left it with, but no assertion of significance. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: i will really appreciate if you can learn your voice by way of editing to root out any content that is deemed promotional.Kingpery (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already removed the promocruft once. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Kerala Blockchain Academy[edit]

Hi, The draft-Kerala Blockchain Academy has been deleted under G11 criteria, however, this is an educational institution set up under the Government of Kerala under the Indian Institute of Information Technology and Management. Could you please help in drafting it in the right manner if am wrong at any place. I Am unable to find the mistake in the draft. According to my perspective, the article is drafted in a neutral tone with reliable citations from newspapers and websites. It would be great to know what should be improved and whether I can start afresh edition on the draft.--Itzanju (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Itzanju: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia, the world's largest encyclopedia. Please read the material linked in the deletion notice I left on your talk page. That should help you recognize your promotionality. If you have been trained or experienced in writing ad copy, it can be hard to unlearn writing in that manner and to learn how to write in a manner suitable to an encyclopedia. Please also follow the links in the welcome I left you. The new user tutorial can help you avoid future problems. For more detailed guidance, you could ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE or the Articles for creation help desk. In so far as creating new articles is concerned, it can be harder than one expects. You might want to gain more experience improving existing articles.Wikipedia:Community portal has links to articles that need improvement. Cheers, and happy editing, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An alarm clock for you![edit]

The lazy admin's sleep buster
What do you mean "And now, back to bed?" The AfD backlog won't clear itself, you know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote you a poem[edit]

  • Lady fingers through my hair
  • Clutching, stroking, caressing
  • A depth of which I hardly dare
  • Frying, spying, lying
  • Esculentus a word I do not spare
  • Pronouncing, announcing, delousing
  • Allopolyploid orphan, I do care
  • Adopting, prelopting, spelunking
  • Mere folly, since I already got what I wanted
  • Why swing, when I won when I bunted.

I wrote you another poem[edit]

  • Never shallow in your frying
  • The seductive fragrance of linoleic acid
  • Growth perennial, always there
  • Our love is far from flaccid
  • Alas verticillium wilt
  • Has made our tower tilt
  • The sound of boots marching leaves my mouth dry

The Signpost: 30 August 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Report to Deepfriedokra[edit]

Hello sir, you made an mistake. I was adding some information the Raleigh, Memphis article until you removed it. Luckily, i re added the information i put on there. But dont worry everyone makes mistakes. God is the only one that never made a mistake, Amen21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

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)[reply]

Can i block other users for serving disruption towards Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Deepfriedokra Richard Raleigh here again. Can i block other users if they using disruption towards wikipedia. I read the blocking policy. Richard Raleigh (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Richard Raleigh, only administrators can block users. If a user is exclusively committing vandalism (though make sure to review what is and isn't vandalism), you can report them to the administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. Otherwise, if a user is persistently disruptive, you can report them to the administrator incidents noticeboard, but you first need to actually talk to the disruptive editor and try to discuss the problem. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Raleigh: And even admins cannot block editors with whom they are in an editing dispute, or are making edits they don't like. You need to seek WP:dispute resolution and WP:consensus. And remember, to other users, you might be the one who appears disruptive. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i will read it and i will ask you more advise. I love to see admins help other users with things they dont know about once they are new to wikipedia. Richard Raleigh (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mahmoud Al Suleiman appeal[edit]

That's a real mess. The appellant has now been blocked as a sockpuppet, and another editor popped up, and I requested CheckUser on them (which wasn't easy, because their name can't be typed* and has to be copy-pasted). I got a comment from an SPI clerk that there is cross-wiki abuse, and there are 160 confirmed sockpuppets. Well, we know how the DRV is going to turn out. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sock farm set on a hill cannot be hidden. So, I say let that little light shine-- shine on like a crazy diamond. But then, it may Blister in the Sun, though I don't even know why. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I am sure that the software exists to permit the keyboard mapping to be switched electronically so that the keyboard will type in Arabic rather than in the Latin alphabet, since the Arabic alphabet has about the same number of letters as the Latin alphabet. I don't plan to try. Anything that can't be typed as it is can be copy-pasted, including names of disrupters. Thank you for blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not endorsing wmf[edit]

trying to remember pre wikipedia existence. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Late apologies[edit]

Hello Deep Fried Okra! I just wanted to apologize for the misinterpreted edits I made and having a username which was against policy. While this issue is long behind us, I thought it wouldn’t be too late to issue a formal apology. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lima Bean Farmer: No problem Glad thingss worked out. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & courtesy vanishing request[edit]

I have chosen to ban myself from this website indefinitely due to an indiscretion that I made. The mistake was completely unintentional and not malevolent, but it doesn't seem like it was taken that way, and people's feelings seemed to have been hurt, so I will no longer edit. I completely misread the names of and mixed up two people that I shouldn't have. Before I do leave, I'd like for my name to be changed and my account to thereafter be vanished, please. I put in a request, but it's been a week since. Is there any way for you or another administrator to manually get this done or to look over my request? Factfanatic1 (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse resolved part of discussion
@331dot and Nosebagbear: ‎Not dead set against it, but there were many concerns leading up to this. This may need discussion via the renamer mailing list. @Factfanatic1: I cannot find your request, so I don't know if there has already been discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also sent in an email to them. Is there any way for one of the three of you to manually authorize the renaming and courtesy vanishing? Or could you perhaps forward my request over to the correct people? I made a manual request myself here: Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple#Factfanatic1 → Limnperson. Could this be fixed or forwarded? Thank you. Factfanatic1 (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All three of us are renamers, so we can discuss it here. The argument against granting your request is that you have had some problems. You would need to understand the idea is for you to leave Wikipedia. If you do not wish to leave, you need to consider WP:FRESHSTART. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you wish to rename or VANISH? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to do both, please. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you vanish, your username is randomized, so there is no need to change it first. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert on the subject, but as I understand it a vanishing is permitted for users "in good standing", which I take to mean users who are not currently blocked; it also seems to include users who are not under any sort of scrutiny. Factfanatic1 has never been blocked from what I can see, so the only issue is the latter. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, Nosebagbear, and Deepfriedokra: In that case, I'd like to be vanished, please. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer Vanishing ain't all it's cracked up to be. It leaves traces ( as I learned the hard way after I renamed). I don't know how to erase those traces. I don't know if there is a way to erase those traces. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be better to rename or to vanish? Whatever option gets rid of the most traces, I'll go with that, if there's no alternative to completely wipe all traces. Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing. I have posted to the renamer mailing list for advice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. How soon do you think I can be vanished? I'd like to have this done as soon as possible to avoid the temptation of editing. Factfanatic1 (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be concerned if we allowed any vanish request by Factfanatic1 whilst there appear to be some sort of ongoing media concerns over their editing here. I noticed that Smallbones had linked to this newspaper article about them, and was seeking some sort of apology. Yet they constantly blank their user talk page without responding, simply saying they're "leaving". I make no comment on the concerns raised in the article, but I do not think it appropriate to delete an editor's contributions, or help them 'Vanish' whilst there appear to be outstanding concerns being expressed about what an editor has accused another living person of having done. It really would not look good on Wikipedia were we to accede to such a request at this time. Obviously, we can't stop an editor from giving up here, but we can ensure there is clarity over any or all of their past actions, even if they do not want to address them themselves. If Factfanatic1 simply never wants to be tempted to edit here again, it might be more appropriate for an admin to respond to a request by them to indef block their account. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)    [reply]
    Welp, Factfanatic1, vanishing you won't do anything to stop you from editing. An indefinite block would do more. We can do that as self-requested, but I think if your editing problems were presented at WP:ANI (quite frankly, and I'm sorry to be so blunt) you be indefinitely blocked for WP:CIR issues. Christ, well, to be further blunt, if you are seeking to vanish to avoid any real world legal repercussions, there is no guarantee it would work. I know that my off-Wiki detractors (hi y'all) followed me to this user name. They even have mocked me for it. So, I just don't know what more to say. This page is sufficiently watched that we can have a discussion here if my watchers choose to opine. Or . . . .--Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (talk page stalker) well, I am tangentially involved, in that I declined the request to restore the page over at WP:REFUND (and, anyway, I'm not even a global renamer), but I'd be against allowing Factfanatic to vanish or even be renamed.
    Factfanatic1, in my mind, your request, especially at this time, looks like an attempt at avoiding well-deserved scrutiny of your edits, which, especially considering the *extremely* serious nature of your violation, is inappropriate. I have to say I'm not sure you understand the severity of your mistake... Salvio 11:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "feelings seemed to have been hurt, " is a vast understatement, so yeah. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an admin, nor do I fully understand the details of vanishing, renaming etc. But I am quite concerned that this all seems like an attempt by ff1 to just make everything disappear as much as possible without accepting any responsibility for their actions (or scrutiny of their edits). If there are cases of online or real world harassment that is one thing - and I'd suggest emailing an admin about this. OTOH if it's only a couple of people who have sent you messages on other places on the internet and expressed displeasure about your actions - well that should be expected and there's not much that would be changed by vanishing. I wouldn't expect that there is any chance of a libel suit here if that's what they are worried about, especially if this is just a case of a high-school kid with $5,000 in life savings. It's not worth anybody's time suing those folks. In short, ff1 made a mistake, there is no need to panic but there are likely a few repercussions that Wikipedians can't do much about. I believe that ff1 is continuing to cause himself problems by removing anything related to this, including his rename request. I am a bit worried that in his hurry to run away from everything the following will happen: ff1 will request to be indef banned and after a month will figure that all traces will have been hidden and then come back with the same editing style, having learned nothing. That wouldn't work for anybody.
So what to do? 1st ff1 should write a sincere apology to the author of the newspaper article. I'm sure she would appreciate it and it would help ff1 understand where to go from here. That would likely include taking a month off editing here and then coming back and editing at a slower, more careful pace. A little humility will go a long way here. Panic won't help at all. There's something of a parallel here with the recent brouhaha with the admin at the Scots encyclopedia. His mistakes seem to have been many times as serious as ff1's. Yet after a few days native speakers of Scots invited him back and he is helping to clean up the mess he made.
There's another parallel here, the Siegenthaler incident, 15 years ago, where a well known journalist was essentially accused by an anon of participating in the murders of John and Robert Kennedy. The reaction on Wikipedia was generally "We have to do something to stop this or nobody will ever believe anything we write here." But 15 years later, we've got something very similar happening. This is where I come in, as the editor of The Signpost. Yes, there will be a mention of this in the next Signpost. I won't mention ff1's user name or real name, but will link to the S.Times article. I'd be remiss not mentioning the incident. How well our BLP rules are (not?) working is a serious concern to the community. All I can really suggest to ff1 is a sincere apology. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 - I've been following this since this morning and tbh Smallbones' has summarised everything up perfectly!.
FF1 The first and foremost thing you should've done is sincerely apologised to that person ... - brushing it under the carpet doesn't suddenly make it disappear. Owning up to your mistakes and apologising for them makes you a much better person and it goes a long way in a lot of peoples books, By ignoring everyone and removing comments you're only damaging your own reputation and career here.
Reach out to the person in question and sincerely apologise, and then go about fixing the mistakes you've made instead of running away from them.
Inregards to renaming/vanishing - IMHO shouldn't be done given the circumstances here. –Davey2010Talk 17:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, Nosebagbear, and Deepfriedokra: I'd like to simply leave Wikipedia with a courtesy vanishing. Is there no way to do this or to expedite the process? I didn't want this to be complicated and I made an honest, completely unintentional mistake in my editing. I have apologized, I'm not sure what else I should do. And I'm now issuing a self-ban by courtesy vanishing. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vanishing process is, per WP:VANISH, "discretionary and may be refused". If you are just interested in not editing, you should just stop editing. If you made a mistake, we want you to learn from it, not just leave. Almost everyone has edits they would take back if they could, but most of us are still here because we have learned from them and became better editors. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If vanishing isn't possible or would be more complicated, could I simply be renamed, please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Factfinder1: I just want to be sure that when you say "I have apologized, I'm not sure what else I should do," that you mean that you sent an email to the journalist involved. Please just say that clearly so that we all understand. If that is the case, I don't think there is more that we can do. As I said above, if there are people harassing you - beyond just criticizing you - send an email to an admin to see what they can do. I don't understand what blocking you, changing your username etc. can do for you, and in general your insistence on it makes me a bit skeptical. But again if there is a specific reason that can't be explained in public, email an admin. I personally would suggest just owning up to the mistake so that you fully understand why it was a mistake and how you can avoid it in the future. Then take a month off and come back using the same username and just edit more carefully. Most people will understand. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: Yes, by apologized, I mean that I sent an email to the journalist in question. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Factfanatic1: Thank you. I am not a lawyer, but I don't see any way that there could be a successful lawsuit now. Newspapers are not in the business of suing their readers and even if they contacted you about the matter, they almost certainly wouldn't take it forward. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No secrets here-- I received a letter from an attorney accusing me of protecting slander in a BLP. I replied explaining that was not my intent and not the effect of my page protection, and offered sound advice for addressing problems with the article via WMF. This section of my user page is partly a result of that experience. Apology and acknowledgement is sometimes all that it takes.The project has done all it can to mitigate the damage-- taking down the offending piece, but a sincere apology is still needed. As far as vanishing is concerned, I renamed to prevent stalking by others, but it did not help. I've been outed and doxed off wiki. (Hi, y'all). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Factfinder1: If you are receiving harassing emails from someone on Wikipedia, forward them to ArbCom. The email link is on my user page. If from off-Wiki, you are already outed or doxed, so that cat is out of the bag.Whatever you do, do not reply to emails received on Wiki-- it reveals your own email. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a minor, tell your parents. If you are receiving letters from attorneys, hire a lawyer. We are not lawyers, and are not qualified to offer legal advice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Factfanatic1, this is all sound advice from experienced editors. Heck I was threatened a month or two ago by lawyers for protecting a page on the wrong version. I agree with all the advice you've been given here. Just take it. Glen (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Factfanatic1: I know DFOkra's userpage isn't WP:ANI, and I still don't know the full details of what has gone wrong, but I'd like to add to a few of the helpful suggestions here. I know you said "Yes, by apologized, I mean that I sent an email to the journalist in question." I'm guessing that whatever happened, you feel mortified by it. Apologising is good, so well done. But then simply running away from the issue is not the right or proper thing to do. Sometimes when things are published in public places, others expect to see an apology in an equally public place, because they'll probably come to look. Now, I don't know if you are a minor or not, but this applies if you are NOT one. Your parents should be the ones advising you if you are one, and not me. But my view would be that before leaving Wikipedia after making what sounds like a horrible and unintended cock-up, that you consider leaving a statement on your userpage. It ought perhaps to be along the lines of
a) I want to offer a public apology to xxx;
b) I fully accept that I made a horrible mistake by doing xxx;
c) this resulted in xxxx, which was not my intention;
d) I am deeply upset by my mistake, and recognise the upset xxxx it has caused that person. There was no malice intended/I meant to do it, but now I wish I hadn't, etc.
e) I have sent them a personal email of apology, explaining what happened and directly saying sorry to them;
f) for anyone upset by my mistake, I would like to apologise to you, too.
g) I should have done/ not have done xxxx, and I now regret that.
h) The page/pages/edits in question have now been dealt with by xxxxx, and have been removed/deleted/redirected/corrected etc
i) I have decided it is best if I were to leave Wikipedia, and not edit again/not edit again for xxx years/not edit articles about xxxx/have requested a permanent block etc etc.
j) I have deleted my userpage content and will/will not be replying to direct questions.
k) Once again, I apologise unreservedly to xxx and anyone else who my edits might have harmed or upset, and I hope you can forgive me etc etc.
The words need to be your own of course, and heartfelt. But I hope you might find something in this suggestion which might help. I'm pretty sure you must be upset by what's happened, especially if you are a minor, but dealing with it in some way like this seems the sensible course of action, in my view.
To everyone else here: I am also wondering whether it might be appropriate and sensible to invite ArbComm to make a public statement, and most especially if this editor was a minor. Best wishes. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Nick. No, admin talk pages are increasingly an alternate venue to the notice boards with less drama. This is fine. Great advice, wish I'd thought of it. I emailed the ARB's, though at least one lurks here.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been mulling over this matter for the last couple of days, and have just reviewed the deleted article and other contributions by (and complaints left for) this editor. I was shocked how an editor could have made such a ridiculous uncited assertion linking a convicted child murder and a professional journalist of approximately similar name, and even directly challenge another editor who added a BLP notice requiring more sources. I then looked at other issues raised with this editor about the skills and concerns over their lack of judgement or competence in how things should be done. I have come to the conclusion that in ordinary circumstances a block per WP:CIR would not have been justified for their other lack of judgement issues. (It was their poor WP:AIV and WP:RFPP reports that caused another editor to get unfairly blocked which drew my attention, not the BLP violation) However, this was an incredibly serious BLP violation which resulted from their sheer incompetence and willingness to jump to conclusions with no evidence (neither reliable nor unreliable!). It has harmed an individual and it has harmed the reputation of Wikipedia itself. I appreciate Factfanatic1 says they've sent a direct email apology to the journalist they accused of being a convicted murderer, and they've repeatedly expressed a desire, both here and elsewhere, to disappear (WP:VANISH) and to cease editing (though I do seriously doubt the latter would happen). I feel Factfanatic1 simply wants this horrible embarrassment to be put behind them and would want to pick up editing with a new account name.
So, I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia should not be seen to permit this user to come back and edit in the same way again under another name and thus potentially make further egregious mistakes of this kind. Combining the broad WP:CIR issue with this extreme WP:BLP violation, plus their expressed desire to WP:VANISH or cease editing, it would be appropriate for this user to receive an indefinite block, which would thus prevent them from creating a new account and simply carrying on under a new name. If I were the affected journalist, I would be writing about how Wikipedia lets people publish serious unfounded accusations, only to disappear and come back under a new pseudonym and make the same mistakes again. A request for an unblock could always be made at an appropriate future date (perhaps subject to a broad restriction on editing any WP:BLP articles). Talk page access should be permitted, of course, especially as I am hopeful they might still consider it appropriate to place a public apology there. I realise a block some days after the event would probably now need to be discussed at WP:ANI, or be placed directly by WP:ARBCOM, but I am confident that would be the appropriate outcome and the best for all concerned. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
I agree with the indef block. Would like to hear back from the ARB's and from other admins. Bringing this to ANI is just going to produce a lot of unnecessary drama. I note that @Factfanatic1: has not followed through with your recommendations. The apology and so forth in their user space are minimal requirements for a situation like this. I know The Signpost is onto this (@Smallbones:. Clearly, this is a horrendous situation that is beyond my scope as an individual admin. Perhaps Bradv could stop by and help remedy this in so far as it can be remedied. Some good advice? (In fact, I think the WMF should probably intervene against him.) (Waves, halloos at TPW's.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin who first responded to this situation (which I discovered through the IP that was removing the libelous statements being reported to AIV by another user), I wonder if I should have blocked Factfanatic1 immediately. It would have saved you all here a lot of headache and frustration. Especially after they failed to understand why it was a "big deal" and HAD to be deleted immediately and not given a chance to be "cleaned up." Based on how many times he was editing after he said he was "leaving", I can't imagine he'll truly vanish if a vanishing request is fulfilled. I support any action anyone here takes. only (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Only: Hindsight is 20/20, so no. Also, having had people come after me for my Wikipedia activities, I really hate the idea of throwing someone to the wolves. Trouble is, this was reckless reporting and the user has not apologised on their Wikipedia talk page. They have not dealt with it. They've tried to run away and not take responsibility. Again, way above my remit as an individual admin. Something must be done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only, Deepfriedokra, Nick Moyes, 331dot, and Nosebagbear:I am a teenage minor. I was advised on my talk page to follow the instructions if I am am a minor and if otherwise, to follow my parents' advisement. My parents advised me to simply not come back to this website as they believe that taking further action would cause more problems than it would resolve things, since my contribution history is public and the fact that I apologized profusely to the journalist in question, explaining what exactly happened, taking full responsibility, and offering to help her in any way. I haven't received a reply from the journalist. My parents advised that if the journalist feels it's necessary for me to publicly and formally apologize, then I should, but otherwise they feel it would cause more problems than necessary. Please consider this one of my last, if not my last, ever edit(s) to Wikipedia, unless the journalist requests that I do so or there's something else that's otherwise emergent. Thank you all for your input and assistance. Good luck! Factfanatic1 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only, 331dot, Nosebagbear, Smallbones, and Bradv: On the basis of the above discussion, and on Factfanatics1's last statement both here and in the final edit summary on their talk page, I have felt it appropriate for one of us to apply an indefinite block to this user, both for extraordinary BLP violation and WP:CIR. I have now done that. I'm confident this action will protect the user, allay the concerns of their parents, protect the reputation of the Project, whilst also avoiding any future such incident from this individual. I have no idea if WMF and ArbCom have had any behind-the-scenes discussions over this, but the most important person in this matter - the unfortunate innocent journalist, and any future individuals who could be affected- need to be confident that the English Wikipedia community does act when they see harassment, whether intentional or unintentional (as I'm sure was the case here). I, for one, feel deeply sorry and ashamed for the distress inflicted on Naomi Ishisaka by the editing actions of an apparently young user here. If I could apologise on behalf of the whole editing community, I would. All editors are individually responsible for the content they create and publish here, and I think this unfortunate incident should serve as a warning to all editors and administrators to be extra vigilant, and never to accept content or to draw conclusions about living or recently deceased persons unless properly sourced with sound and reliable citations. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, y'all. This has been most unfortunate for both the creator and the subject. I too need to reach out to her. And the underlying cause is not the overzealousness of one user. This is a systemic problem in that there is no or little editorial overwatch on negative BLP content. That such erroneous coverage entered the main space before it was caught is not acceptable. ArbCom is busy right now, but this is just one glaring example of which we happen to be aware, of a problem long in need of remedy. It's the responsibility of the Community to fix this problem, and it will take an ArbCom case to try to fix it. WMF is ultimately accountable, despite its disclaimers, but we are collectively responsible. This sort of reckless defamation must not happen again. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't see this article or know about its deletion till I came across the article in the Seattle Times. Correct me if I am wrong, but what Factfanatic did seems to be a classic case of WP:SYNTH.
    • SYNTH is a major problem around WP. It isn't necessarily being done by young editors or ones with just a few edits around here, but by long established editors like here[7]. In some cases I've had to fight tooth and nail to get this stuff out of articles, check the recent edit histories of Bobby Floyd and 1959 Open Championship to see what I mean. Too many editors put something in a article[8] with a inline citation doesn't verify it. Tell me where in this article[9] does it mention the 1975 US golf Open at Medinah? In a thread that can be found here[10], Editor Ahunt wrote 'It is common to misquote refs or just mis-type info from refs, less common to intentionally put in a ref that doesn't support the text added at all, but it does happen often enough to watch out for it.' Golfer who was once hit by lightning at a Chicago area golf tournamet makes a funny quote= Quote comes from another Chicago golf area golf tournament where the player encountered lightning. Sounds like SYNTH to me and the editor responsible has made over 200,000 WP edits. Don't get me started on editors who push an article successfully to Good article status when it had bogus information in it and editors who tried to combat it were beaten down. Check the edit history of Crossair Flight 498 to see what I mean.
A couple other of quicky comments. The log for Naomi Ishisaka says the article was reviewed. That article got through review says our review process is a joke. Almost as bad as this debacle, was what I found[11] in an aviation accident eight years ago. There has to be more of this defamation and how much is sitting behind inline citations and backed by experienced editors willing to fight to keep it articles?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: Thanks. All good points, and this is just the-one-I-heard-about. There are more. This is a systemic problem, not just one overzealous editor and a not thorough enough reviewer. I don't know what it will take to fix it. I know it has been inadequately addressed recurrently. WP:BLPN is overloaded. I take it Signpost is writing about this instance. ArbCom is busy right now, but they might grip this bull by the horns once they are finished. Or not. Looks like you have plenty of information for an ArbCom filing. And dammit, that kid's recklessness should have been caught before he defamed someone and destroyed his own WIki-career. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the opposite end of the spectrum, we have this debacle. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's another mess for sure.
Another article with BLP problems and an experienced editor not getting it took place at Missy Gold just recently. Inline citations were being used to identify her as a psychiatrist with a different name who was practicing in Northern California. While the IC say Gold became a psychiatrist, neither IC said Gold is the psychiartrist in California, or goes by that name. Nor is there a reliable source for saying that. Maybe that article's history needs protection because of the BLP problems.
These BLP problems you, I, and others write about above need the attention of ARBCOM. You may find it hard to believe about an editor here for over 10 years, with over 100,000 edits, and not shy about controversy, and they have never taken part at ARBCOM even once. That's me.
I have the memory and enough things written down like up above, to start a case. Two things- Would you be able to privately email me a copy of the Naomi Ishisaka so I can address its shortcomings without guess work? Secondly, could you help me with the ARBCOM filing? You say ARBCOM is busy but BLP is at the heart of WP and the problems we are both seeing need to be addressed sooner rather than later....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: I've never started an ArbCom case. Will need help myself. But I believe this needed doing long ago. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in that there is no or little editorial overwatch on negative BLP content Out of interest, how do you propose this problem be fixed? Aren't we just limited by manpower, to review BLP violations? I guess one could argue it's ArbCom's job to figure it out, but I'd like to see how they get around the physical limitations whilst not creating undue barriers to editing (which would probably cause more harm than good, in all honesty). There's already BLPDS, but (ref... stuffs) I think too much ROPE is given sometimes. But the issue you folks mention is the opposite: less experienced contributors. And it's also much more difficult to deal with without those physical limitations. Maybe it's something for the WMF to chuck money at with some technical solutions, to overcome the human limitations. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I've no idea how to fix this. Grasping at straws. I can only hope that wiser and smarter people than I can. And yes, ultimately, it might require WMF action. But the community must at least try. WMF's solution is to claim indemnity against harm caused by editors. If, though blameless, you get a letter from an attorney, the WMF will offer financial assistance for legal fees. ArbCom can act without to much unreasonable resistance from the community, but this could create a firestorm just because some users fail to recognise the problem. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Nick Moyes, best of intentions I know but I don't think Special:Diff/977392157 was a good idea at all. This editor, apparently a minor, may well have ended up in (and still may) legal trouble if the offended subject wished to pursue it. What the editor did was an awful violation, and it'd be within the subject's rights to pursue it probably. Thus imo it's not our place to offer legal advice, and for someone in a sticky legal situation we shouldn't be offering any advice imo, not least an administrator offering advice to said minor in a tricky legal situation to make incriminating comments on their userpage before getting their indef. It may sound awful, but imo nobody should be offering someone in a position like that any advice at all, other than strictly Wikipedia procedural advice (eg on VANISH etc). For their own sakes, and the offending editor's. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DFO for sending me a copy of the article. It certainly cleared up for me what took place. I thought Fact may have missed the different spelling of the persons involved but its not so. IMHO this fiasco makes WP look absolutely horrible. Fact violating SYNTH to draw the conclusion that they were the same person was bad enough, but they did it such a way it should set off a big flashing red light to any other editor around here that this article had a potentially bad BLP. That's because the part saying Foote now uses a penname was near the very top of the article and not referenced. That should of told editors 'Whoa!' but it didn't. Instead we know because of this[12] and this page[13] that at least five editors, including one administrator, failed to see the glaring problem. One of whom, an editor with over 100,000 edits here, even tagged it for BLP sources. That reflects horribly on WP as does the actual defamation.

I'm going to file something with ARBCOM but it won't be till the middle of next week earliest. I'll keep you advised. Should you have any thoughts on the filing, send me a message....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, I really don't see what ArbCom can do to fundamentally fix the issue. What happened here is a 4k edits editor added this problem. Administrators already have the tools, should they exercise them, per everything in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Role_of_administrators, to deal with this when they see it. But WP:BLPDS is so underused (ref AELOG and AN/I discussions), and many aren't aware of it. If admins feel WP:BLPDEL is too restrictive to have taken earlier action, the community could amend that and make it easier to preventatively (temporarily) delete possibly problematic new BLPs, pending discussion on BLPN (or a sub-board of it exclusively for this), but seems like "restrictive BLPDEL" wasn't the issue here. They can already remove content on existing ones & protect per WP:BLPADMINS. Note, though, anyone could've draftified+blanked it (temp). But that's what it comes down to, admin action.
What's implicitly been suggested here is that ArbCom do something to prevent this stuff which doesn't require admin action (eg implement general prohibitions). But none would (or should) apply to a 4k+ editor, and how can you otherwise predict a 4k+ editor was going to create this page? It got past NPP, which is an issue, but what if someone later added this to a new (OK at the time) patrolled page, it would make the NPP point moot anyway. What it needs are technical solutions, beating the manpower barriers, to first flag content, then more proactive admin action to deal with it. ie maybe an edit filter for controversial remarks, or WMF to pay for some AI to detect libellous/problematic edits. Sure, maybe ArbCom could encourage freer attitudes and fix the issue where IPs were getting blocked for removing controversial content (which was ridiculous), but community could do the same. Maybe AC will come up with something unprecedentedly smart & fancy to address the fundamental barriers implied here, if it's even possible at all, but the typical solutions of enacting DS / 1RR / 500/30 are not smart & fancy, nor would they have helped in this case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, I think the EF I lay out there could help. It would create a perm log patrollers/others could look over and find such remarks being added to living people. It'd take some tuning to get it right, but once done I think it's the most realistic and biggest defence to this kind of stuff. Right now we have no edit filter, ie no log, of people adding claims a living person shot/killed/murdered/raped, or other such controversial remarks, which is somewhat surprising. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries[edit]

Why are your edit summaries exactly the same as your comments, such as this? Just interested to know. --94.73.33.144 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, just the short ones, I like to be clear about what I've written. I dislike writing non informative edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) time, day month year (UTC)

Looking for ANI closure[edit]

I was just looking for an admin to close the current ANI incident for User:PeacePeace which seems to have consensus for site ban and has been there longer than the 72hr waiting period for blocking decisions. Would you be willing to assist? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 09:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwenhope: Great Ghu! So many admins said "site ban"! I'm on my way out the door. Looking forward to formatting the block log entry on my return. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwenhope: Sorry, I'll leave it for someone more experienced at closing ANI threads. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RiB did the job. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Draft! Draft:Trezvant High School[edit]

Hi there! I made a new draft article about an high school. I also you thank you for deleting the Spring Hill article because it was not notable for an school article. Go check out the high school draft when you get a chance! Hope, you have a great day! Richard Raleigh (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why my website page deleted ?[edit]

Kindly suggest how i can make page for my website ?

if any video tutorial available kindly share ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.77.27.152 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's your Website? Please see User:Deepfriedokra/g11. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must meet inclusion criteria such as WP:GNG.

"All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH second opinion[edit]

I'd appreciate a second opinion on this revert on the grounds of WP:SYNTH/commentary. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: You are correct in saying, "still WP:SYNTH; it's not Wikipedia's job to interpret photos in that way". I'm sure that would look good in an essay or paper. Here, it's WP:OR --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article review[edit]

Nice work you have been doing.

I published an article on Yetunde Teriba, an AU diploma tYetunde_Teriba which I got a notification that you reviewed, and in the same vein I got a notification for speedy deletion from another user. I do not know the one that came before or after.

I am relatively new to the deletion process, I can't seem to find the speedy deletion tag so I can contest why it should not be deleted. I probably did not get the tone right, hence why I am humbly requesting for a review before deletion. Honestly though, it is hard getting content and media in the Africa space, we are trying to combat this by putting one piece at a time. Little help here please.

Thanks alot.

IJ30ma Irene (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IJ30ma Irene: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia, the world's largest free-content encyclopedia. I declined the speedy deletion and cleaned up the promotional content. Please see User:deepfriedokra/promo for more information on avoiding promotional content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: Thank you for the clarification and pointer to the article. We learn everyday, I just did. Would search for more articles on promotional content in order to avoid such next time. Thanks once again. Ciao IJ30ma Irene (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: Good day. Here again. Pardon me, please review the article again, a sockpuppet came and sent everything tumbling down. Now I can't even understand the article anymore. Thanks IJ30ma Irene (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of Hari Mari[edit]

Hi, Deepfriedokra, the Hari Mari, a WP:PROMOTIONAL article whose creation was restricted to extended user only by you has been recreated as per logs. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 19:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amkgp: Protection expired. Perhaps the deletor will reapply protection.19:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of Evergreen Group Station[edit]

Hey User:Deepfriedokra, this Richard Raleigh once again!! 🙂 Can I recreate Evergreen Group Station as an draft. I know it been deleted. Richard Raleigh (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Raleigh: You will need to deal with the concerns over sourcing and notability found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Group Station. It will need to meet WP:NCORP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will add notable references to it. But can we have a meeting Sunday about recreating the article. Richard Raleigh (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

off line[edit]

Okra
  • Large okra plant
    Large okra plant
  • Okra flower blossom close-up
    Okra flower blossom close-up
  • Okra cotyledon
    Okra cotyledon
  • Sautéed okra with coriander
    Sautéed okra with coriander
  • Shrimp gumbo with pieces of okra
    Shrimp gumbo with pieces of okra
  • Okra curry
    Okra curry
  • Stewed okra with tomatoes
    Stewed okra with tomatoes
  • Bhindi bharta, a south Asian okra dish
    Bhindi bharta, a south Asian okra dish
  • Okra sauce from togo
    Okra sauce from togo
  • Okro flower
    Okro flower
  • Self portrait
    Self portrait

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What, no pics of fried okra (asks the man who had some for lunch)? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dredg AKA, The Dredg Retort[edit]

Thank you for protecting the page! I'd like you ask you an opinion. My IP range is one of the IP ranges used by the anonymous vandal to disrupt that page, and this is the reason why it was partially blocked. But the vandal can use also other IP ranges, yet only my IP range was blocked. Do you think that, now that the page is protected, I might write an unblock request? 151.21.71.107 (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Dredg and User_talk:Woody#Protection_of_Dredg. It appears that an LTA from the 151.21 block is an LTA. I've blocked a few of the IPs and @Ohnoitsjamie: has done a number of rangeblocks. PC seems like a good solution at the moment but also rather bizarrely is what the LTA wants. Woody (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully what follows: I'm "N O T" the vandal who disrupted that page and other pages both here and in other wikis. I thought I implied it in my comments. Because of that vandal, who shares an IP range with me, I found mine partially blocked, and frankly this annoys me. The vandal is continuing disrupting the page by using other IP ranges, it's obvious that protecting the page was a good solution as you said. He was the cause of the block, so I'm against that vandal and I'm trying hinderim him. If I were the vandal, if I had an interest in disrupting that page, why on earth would I request for its protection? To prevent myself from editing even more than I'm already prevented? I could change IPs and edit it over and over if it was me, instead I've asked to impede precisely this. I'll be happy if the vandal who caused a block involving me has his plans ruined. So far he's gone on doing what he wanted, but now that the page is protected, even if not in the most suitable way, he'll be prevented from doing it again. That's what I wanted, that's what admins wanted, only the vandal didn't want it, so may you tell me what's wrong in this? Do you really believe I'm that vandal? I'm not him, period. He's been switching IP several times, I'm wondering since the beginning why only mine has to undergo a block because of him, this really bothers me... 151.21.89.158 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that you (the non-vandal) just happen to be on the same Italian IP range as the vandal, and you're both only interesting in editing the page of a fairly obscure California rock band? Totally plausible. There's good news, though; good-faith editors who are affected by range blocks can Wikipedia:Request an account, so that they can make their non-vandal edits. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deepfriedokra; I don't believe any protection is necessary for that page; it's being handled by (long) partial range blocks that are obviously connected to the same individual. This request for protection makes no sense, and is being requested by the person who is partially range-blocked (that range is now also partial-blocked from further frivolous RFPP requests). OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many users can potentially connect to a /16 IP range? 2^16 (65536). Let me quote the page about the telecommunications operator providing this and others IP ranges: "WINDTRE has 27.1 million mobile customers with a market share of 30.8% (placing itself ahead TIM, Vodafone Italy and Iliad Italia) and 2.7 million customers on fixed lines with a market share of 13.2% (that makes it the second largest fixed line operator, behind TIM).". It's sooo obvious that 2 (two) anonymous users from this IP range are the same person and it can't be otherwise!!! For goodness sake... I don't even know anything about that California rock band. You know, there's no shame in admitting you've been wrong, but rather it's a sign of maturity. I can't help thinking that secretly you know you got it wrong and that you just think that doing the right thing would be embarassing to you. It's the opposite, insisting on something wrong just not to show you've opened your eyes and changed your mind is what makes one appear on the wrong side for all to see. All this is happening because of "you". If there had been another admin in your place, maybe not every other admin but certainly most of them, the solution would have been protecting the page instead of increasing a block with no real reason (because no further vandalism has come from this range, just from other ranges). One who cares about the project, seeing that new IPs are being used to disrupt a page, would protect that page instead of pouncing on IPs that are already prevented from editing such a page. The only reason to do such a thing is because the issue has been taken personally, it isn't any more about the sake of the project but about an admin and an anonymous using the same IPs used by a vandal. I may be wrong, I'm not perfect, but that's what I think, and probably I'm not the only one who thinks that. 151.21.85.156 (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty exciting, but there is no reason to protect the page as long as we can block you from editing it. Let's compare the two options: (1) semi-protect the page, which limits ALL editors editing from IPs or newish account from editing that one page, or (2) targeted partial-blocking a few ranges that all geolocate to the same place and are thus likely to be used by the same editor. Editors from those Italian ranges are free to edit the remaining 6.2 million articles in Wikipedia. Option #2 is extremely unlikely to inconvenience anyone except the Dredg pest. If you continue to beat this dead horse, I'll upgrade your range block to a full block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, y'all. I'd not dredged through all that info. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6.2x10^6 / 65536 = 94.6 articles apiece! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I might write an unblock request?" Oddly, that request is granted. As to personally, I'm thrilled to be allowed to curate the largest online free-content encyclopedia in the world (thank you very much) and take any abuse of that encyclopedia as a personal affront. Now that makes me pretty wiki-obsessed. Then I have to consider the wiki-obsessions of others. . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

spam ring[edit]

2601:183:857F:27C0:A5A8:6C9A:2FAE:B970 appears to be the same as Hellowikiwo and Wikiwohello who are making the same promotional edits. 2605:A000:1327:6313:4DE1:63B7:A890:CA48 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add me on discord?[edit]

Hello DeepFried! I am very new to wikipedia so I was wondering if we could talk on discord? I have a few questions for you. Thank you! (Reality#3567) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallenLarson (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DallenLarson: Absolutely not. Any discussion about editing Wikipedia needs to take place right here on Wikipedia. I and others have repeatedly offered you guidance and you insist upon promoting yourself. You might seek guidance at WP:Teahouse. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DallenLarson: I see you have recreated the draft in your user space. Please read the guidance I have given you. That is not what a user page is for. As your only purpose is self promotion, you are risking being blocked from editing by this persistence. Thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?[edit]

Please understand that I am new to wiklipedia. I have no idea what I am doing. I want your help but you're not being transparent enough. I need to know exactly what to do. You said I resubmitted the version that had self-promotion but it isn't true? Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallenLarson (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help you. Help you what? Promote yourself? Sorry no. Obviously, you know what you are doing -- the opposite of what you have been advised to do. You might ask at the WP:Teahouse Obviously I have been unable to reach you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Place Clichy (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy: Thanks, but . . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. On a more serious note, this very poor article on a very non notable subject survived deletion before, although it seems that most editors did not really understand what it was about. From the single edit you did on this page (more than 10 years ago) it seems that you are one of the few that understand and care. That's why I took the liberty to notify you. Feel free to weight in one way or another or ignore it altogether! Happy editing! Place Clichy (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Hill University[edit]

Thank you for Rev-delling one BLP violation at Edge Hill University Unfortunately the same accusation (readacted) was re-added in a later edit - could you please rev-del that as well - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)  Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re your ping at WP:RFPP..[edit]

.. here. Apparently the disruptive IP has access to more than one /64 range, for instance they've also used 2409:4063:4e82:fe95:3eae:c0de:2b5c:4cf3. I've blocked the /64 ranges I can see, i.e. 2409:4063:4004:395f::/64 and 2409:4063:4e82:fe95::/64, for two weeks. Don't know how much good that'll do. @RexxS:; any more clever rangeblock that can be done, do you think? Bishonen | tålk 14:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Should I remove the full protection? My impression was that the IP was some sort of caste warrior, especially when they called their opponent a Nazi. Having said that, I did not want to appear to take sides in a content dispute. As you blocked, I take it I was overly cautious. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The IP seems to be doing caste promotion, not to mention the PAs in edit summaries (I think I'll revdel those, btw), so I'd be disinclined to treat the disagreement as if they and Fylindfotberserk were on the same level, having a dispute. Not that a full protection for a couple of days does any harm, but I'd rather go with semi for a week or so. Or nothing, I guess, since I've blocked the IP ranges (though how effectively remains a question). Bishonen | tålk 15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Apologies for getting into your discussion, but I'd like to link this discussion. Similar POV push on downplaying/removing the person's Gujarati ancestry was done by sockpuppeteer User:Karkanistan and their sock User:UserGK23 in the past, and possibly User:Kaistha. One of the things they did, just like the IP was to change the order of ethnicities/castes "Mathur" and "Gujarati Shrimali Brahmin". Also notice edit summaries that reflected patriarchal bias [14]. The caste in a BLP can be written if the subject of the article "self-identifies" that as per WP:INB. And in the video link from a reliable news agency Indian Today, the subjects father mentions it in the order: Gujarati Shrimali Brahmin grandmother and a Mathur Kayastha grandfather. I was just trying to maintain that order. Also to note, I didn't provide the source and the content in the first place. As for my own work, I've always removed caste mention in BLPs if there is no self-identification. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fylindfotberserk: Thanks, if this resumes, let me know. Might want to file at WP:SPI. The IP's are blocked, and we don't connect IP's to accounts, but it might be good to document for future reference. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will. Will it be better if I file an SPI for User:Kaistha? ID seems stale though. But their contribs look WP:DUCK to me. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That' always tricky. Whichever you think the best match. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm not filing any SPI on that old account now, but if I come across this kind of disruptions, I report to you and simultaneously file an SPI. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, this guy is back. Look at the filth he posted in my talkpage [15]. My talk page needs to get PPed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He says his IP has been unblock. Special:Contributions/2401:4900:44DB:D9D5:1CCE:9A3C:5C88:7F11, Special:Contributions/27.60.101.96. Needs a range block. Pinging Bishonen as well - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question to an admin[edit]

As I begin to run out of edits for this month (I currently limit myself to 99) and I notice that the creator stuck his toe back in the water a couple of weeks ago but I assume is unwilling to risk resubmitting, I wonder whether I would be terribly violating policy to move Draft:Rikkeisoft back to mainspace. I have discussed the WP:BITE in this case (as I see it; I believe the editor) with 3 other admins in the past, and prevailed on the editor who quick-failed the draft to change it from a template offering no way to resubmit. I have also worked on the article myself. I cannot read the languages of the references (Japanese and Vietnamese), but they appear to me to be adequate to demonstrate notability, and I do not regard the article as promotional in its language. I'm therefore willing to take the reputational hit from re-mainspacing it, and I have a few edits remaining to do my best to defend it at AfD if necessary, but the creator moved it back to mainspace himself rather than resubmit it, and so it has been in effect quick-failed again in the re-draftification. I'd hate to think either that it has become effectively impossible for us to have a new article on a business (see also my statements at Talk:Whistle (company); I moved that to mainspace in 2017, I believe all my comments there were made while it was still a draft, but I could be misremembering) or that the increasingly common use of draftification is going to increase the barriers to broadening our coverage by tucking articles away where they're even less likely to be seen by an editor who can read the sources; that's already an inevitable unfortunate corollary at NPP of restricting NPP to a subset of editors. But how serious a violation of process would it be; are we talking WP:NOTBURO or consensus? (I am aware I could just apply to become an AfC editor, but I'm too soft-hearted for that, and besides it would involve downloading some tool.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks kinda promo to me. I'd hesitate to move it back. Was it User:MER-C that moved it back? I'd rely on their judgment. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was, but judging by the edit summary, purely on grounds of COI. As I say, I believe the editor's statement denying COI. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More sockpuppet articles[edit]

Hi Deepfriedokra. Thanks for deleting Jamison Creek Road. Would you mind doing the same for Moya Bobel Road, Uncle Man Road, and Empire Grade? They're articles by the same sock that are also tagged for G5 deletion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another Calitri sock has popped up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire Grade and is trying to mess with the signatures of an already blocked sock—see here and here. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion for Mac Calvin[edit]

Hello Deepfriedokra My name is King work and im am currently new here. I will like to ask you to delete the Mac Calvin draft article. Thank you for your support! King Work (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a BLP question for you[edit]

It is about Sandra Haynie. The article has her categorized as a LGBT person and a lesbian but the article has no mention of her sexual orientation. Should those categories be on her (or any other similar living person) page then?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: Thanks, good question. IMHO, it shouldn't be a cat if not in the text. Having said that, I would check for prior versions that support it and for sourcing there-of. It might be interesting to look at the editing of whoever added the CAT. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lesbian sportspeople dates to 2012 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into this further. Martina Navratilova wrote a autobiography[16] saying she had an affair with Haynie. There is also an AfterEllen interview[17] with golfer [[Rosie Jones. AE , not Jones, asserts Haynie is gay. Jones said Haynie never came out....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for Haynie's article, a IP editor added[18] in 2008 that Haynie was openly living as a lesbian with the AfterEllen interview as a reference. At some unknown time, that got edited out of the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A little tabloidesque. One could argue it sufficient for inclusion. I'd take out the cat and if anyone objects, there can be a discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I edited[19] them out of the article with a edit summary that had a link back to here. IMHO, edit on the side of caution....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Troll[edit]

You may like to block Dellimation from UTRS. JBW (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long is the duration? --217.113.243.81 (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

er, no --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "er, no"? --217.113.243.81 (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Nein, non, Hayır, hayi, nyet ". And if you know anyone who is evading their, block, please tell 'em I said so. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

34748[edit]

UTRS appeal #34748 - yes please. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susie[edit]

Pinged you on talk there earlier. I believe your histmerge accidentally removed the move protection on the page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing UTRS[edit]

Any special requirements for this? --217.113.243.81 (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

admins who have singed WMF's privacy statement acknowledgement, due to the sensitive nature of UTRS.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian subcontinent[edit]

Random editors again attacking the article to remove the wrong version. It is very difficult for an editor to keep up with the attacks to constantly remove cited and sourced information from the article. Can you take another look at the situation? Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir: probably Sitush, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Vanamonde93 are more knowledgeable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Should I ping them on the article talk? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I pinged them here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a fairly standard instance of users needing to establish talk page consensus. Aditya Kabir, as far as I can see, those terms were not in the lead prior to your involvement in the article, and while the arguments opposing its inclusion on the talk page may be flimsy, you may need a formal consensus building exercise like an RFC before including the material you want in the lead. You certainly shouldn't be edit-warring over it. Incidentally, Deepfriedokra, I'd recommend EC-protection for this page; there's far too many disruptive edits from autoconfirmed accounts. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I am in the process of writing the case, and open an RfC. I promise not ignore the part "as far as I can see, those terms were not in the lead prior to your involvement in the article" in the case. Maybe a protection till a clear consensus emerges is all the article needs. But, you people would be experts on that. This certainly looks like an edit war on my part, though I kept asking for help everytime the discussion was disrupted, hopefully at apropriate places, and engaged each and every editor who kept removing stuff, requesting each and everyone to take part in the discussion; only two did and both left the discussion rejecting the idea of taking this to an RfC or a DRN. I still don't want to remain in anything that looks like an edit war, particularly in articles under DS. I hope I am still doing the right thing. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update RfC posted at article talk page. I am afraid it's too long (how else could I present the scenario in a comprehensive manner?). Hoping for the best.
BTW, Okra, how do you get that rotating roaster of images in your talk banner? Can I have the codes or the template? Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was that necessary? The team that was bent on removing content without discussion has removed the content, and are not discussing. What you protected is the version they were trying to achieve. And I cannot do anything for the article anymore. With or without the protection, the 30 stipulated days of RfC is the only thing that can happen against this team operation right now, and maybe an ANI is the only future. But I don't think anyone cares, and I shouldn't bother either. I don't own it anyways.
You still didn't tell how to get the picture trick you used in your talk banner. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Vanamonde93 above. [[File:{{#invoke:Carousel |main |Shonen |switchsecs=3 }} |<div style='text-align:center;'>roarr</div>|thumb |centre |upright=1.7]] (stolen from Bishonen) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, you even stole the roaring! [Menacingly:] That belongs to Bishzilla, you know! Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sure Bishzilla happily keep puny admin in pocket, where safe. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Grumpily:] Oh all right. Go sit in Victorian salon! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 19:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Your own carousel[edit]

As a special reward, I've made your own carousel for you. The images live at Module:Carousel/DFO (just a duplicate of Shonen's to start with) and you can freely edit that to change the list of images displayed however you want, without disturbing the one at User talk:Bishonen. Enjoy, and ping me if you need help. --RexxS (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continues[edit]

As soon as the article was unprotected, our friends have reverted it twice more. And only one of them has so far participated in the RfC (mostly personal attacks though). The only participating one – عباس – has reverted the article about four times already, the last one a few hours back. Looks like you and Vanamonde93 was right about protecting the article. I just learned that edit warriors don't give up so easily. Sigh. Interesting to see that it is possible on the Wikipedia to declare your TEAM and its disruptive intentions openly along with personal attacks, and get away with it. So much to learn yet. By the way, you two haven't commented at the RfC yet. Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment at the RfC, because I haven't the time to dig deep into the source material. Opening it was the right thing to do, but you've gone on at such length that it's likely to be self-defeating. In any case, you need to wait for it to be closed; edit-warring in the meantime does not look good. Furthermore, if you have concerns about the behavior of other editors, you need to bring it to administrator attention (as you have done here), and not go on about it on the talk page; you're likely to run afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS in doing so. Talk pages are strictly for discussing content. Administrator noticeboards are for discussing behavior. Your posts keep mixing the two, and make it very difficult for someone unfamiliar with the editors in question to get a handle on the situation. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to address this for the foreseeable future. Please discuss content on talk pages and conduct at WP:ANI. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. One more request. As I have found that I am really unskilled at dealing with such stuff, I would like to have a second (and third) opinion about any case I post at ANI. I would probably create the case at a sandbox and requeast you to advise. Is that alright? Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, @Vanamonde93:, DFO, I have collapsed the lenght and striked out not nice parts in the discussion. Did I do right? Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditya Kabir:, I appreciate that you're asking for feedback at every step, but when both Deepfriedokra and myself have told you we're too busy to get further involved, asking us to check every last thing you've done isn't very helpful. If we had the time, you wouldn't need to go to ANI in the first place. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Definitely overstayed the welcome. Sorry about that. I am just a bit worried about doing everything wrong and getting beaten up bad for that. I have found out the values of doing the right thing in everything rather painfully. I am sure I can be foregiven for being so pesky. Thanks you both once again, for the valuable advise and guidance. And... one last TeacupY cup of tea before I leave. Ciao. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

You do excellent work, here and on UTRS. :) I sincerely appreciate when you beat me to a particular ticket and I'm frequently impressed (and occasionally amused) by your responses. You make it just a bit better, being an admin. --Yamla (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: You're welcome and thanks. It is perfectly soul-numbing to wade through those. Anything to make it more nearly bearable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP[edit]

The IP you just blocked, 120.29.67.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) shares a similar edit history to that of 111.125.118.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who was blocked for 3 months. I left a brief note on the AVI page mentioning such, but I don't know if that was seen or not. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zinnober9: based on the editing history of this IP, the block is sufficient. I'm loathe to place an excessively long block until the present block proves ineffective. One imposes the minimal block possible to avoid collateral damage. And, as you can see, that 3 month block, placed 3 days ago, stopped nothing as the vandal simply hopped to a new IP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, I see your reasoning. Just was seeing the differences, and if there were something about an IP hopper getting uniformly blocked for the same length of time, I didn't want you left in the dark about the other one, or if the hopping warranted upgrading. Thanks for all that you do, best wishes, happy weekend! Zinnober9 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding this perplexing[edit]

We both met this editor this morning. their contributions record shows some suprises. The type of edit they have returned to WP to perform seems to be the small time trivial stuff, deletions excepted, and it could be argued that it is work to build an edit count in order to enable other functionality. I'm sure this has not escaped your notice. Fiddle Faddle 10:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As anticipated, 12:52, 27 September 2020 Jiv arshu talk contribs was automatically updated from (none) to extended confirmed user has happened. Of course, that was inevitable, but I am keeping an eye out Fiddle Faddle 11:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: not anymore G'night. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, good choice. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Sumbitch, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a nasty one. Urbane, polite, and rather aggravating, with the usual small number of useful edits among the ordure Fiddle Faddle 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating a page title similar to the previously deleted page[edit]

I need to create article similar to previously deleted page Niche Garden Tiniphilip (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiniphilip:Why? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Sharad Pagare Deletion[edit]

Hello Deepfriedokra,

"Draft: Sharad Pagare" has been deleted by "Speedy Deletion Nomination" by you.

I know some of the details mentioned in "Draft: Sharad Pagare" may fall under "blatant advertising" instead of being an encyclopedia. But don't you think that it can be overlooked because it is just a "DRAFT"? As per my understanding, "Draft" itself means that something is not final & it's likely to go through numerous iterations to reach into its final desired form, in this case which is an "Encyclopedia".

I am a new user at Wikipedia. I would request you, NOT to delete the Draft page as I am still working on it. How would I make the desired page if the Draft itself will be deleted? It will cease the opportunity for me to create an encyclopedia (named as Sharad Pagare), which I believe, should be accessed publicly.

Lastly, I would like to thank you for your action as it will help me to understand the difference between "Advertising" and "Encyclopedia", but at the same time I'd request for your kind cooperation & consideration to please give some time to new users, like me, so that we can come up with actual Encyclopedia.

Thank you.

Regards, Arjun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun Khede (talk • contribs) 09:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Arjun Khede, there are some things which are permissible in draft space but not article space; there are other things which are not permissible anywhere on Wikipedia. Amongst these are defamatory pages, copyright violations, and advertising or promotion - things like that are usually deleted on sight by administrators. If you recognise that the content was promotional, you can avoid this problem in future by producing drafts that are not promotional. Best GirthSummit (blether) 10:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sample page/90526352[edit]

I see you deleted Draft:Sample page/90526352 under G11, "unambiguous advertising". Did you read it before deleting it? How is unambiguous advertising? I was getting ready to delete it under G3 - blatant hoaxes, which it clearly was, but I didn't see anything remotely advertisy in it, and was getting ready to ask Celestina007, who tagged it, why he/she chose that tag. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn, as a non admin I can’t see the page now but I’m pretty sure it was promotional. It may have well been a hoax as well but if memory serves me right it was indeed promotional. Celestina007 (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) (I seem to be stalking here a lot tonight.) Guys it's complete nonsense whichever way you cut it. Yes, it's a hoax (or at least self-delusional); it's also self-promotional so G11 is fine. The particular CSD category isn't worth arguing the toss over. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I think there may be something going on here, there was an RFPP request earlier today to salt a page in this format but with a different number. Is there some process here that creates these sample drafts, like part of a new user welcome script or something? Also is that a photo of a power washer trigger in your editnotice? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: Well, getting past the insulting, " Did you read it before deleting it?" It was a bit of a mishmash wasn't it? Part vandalism, part nonsense, part promotional. The only thing clear about it was that it should be be deleted. Please, do feel free to restore if you feel I deleted in error, as I say in the edit notice for this talk page. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I did not mean to be insulting by asking if you read it before deleting it. There is no way I'm restoring it - it totally needed to be deleted. I just do not understand how it can be construed as promotional, which is what I was asking both you and Celestina007. I still would like to know what was promotional about it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ONUnicorn: I just went back and looked, "this legacy creates a magical energy that is passed down thru bloodlines for all of time due to the fact that energy is never destroyed only recreated in this case inherited," is but one sentence promoting whatever the concept was they were promoting. Considering their high degree of empathy, they shoulda seen deletion coming. And considering the problems we've had with batch deletions and other nonsensical deletion approaches (resulting in desysopping) , I find your leading question about as collegial as a slap in the face. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Often when I look at the speedy deletion que, I see a large number of articles tagged as G11 which I don't think are as "exclusively promotional" as the CSD requirements call for. Sometimes I decline them, more often I leave them for someone else to deal with. Occasionally, as with this one, I find another CSD criteria that I think fits it better and delete it under that. Seeing that you went ahead and deleted it as G11, and knowing that you are more experienced as an admin than I am, I wanted to get a better handle on how you are interpreting "exclusively promotional", or how much review or consideration you are giving to if/how it fits or doesn't fit which criteria (not to imply - which I realize you thought I did earlier - that you are mindlessly mass deleting, but rather that I may be overthinking the CSD criteria when I am working the que). I still have questions about how that article fits the G11 criteria, but I'm afraid my thoughtless comment earlier has derailed this conversation, and this "article" was probably not the best example anyway, because no matter how you slice it it needed to go. That said, if, in the future, I have questions about how/why you took an admin action that is different than what I would have done, I hope you would be willing to help me understand, rather than thinking that I am attacking/insluting/"questioning" you unfairly. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ONUnicorn, there was also this nugget: This is magic that can not be learned its inherited with lineage meaning their ancestors accomplished great deeds or feats for their time. I descend from the pirate lineage of Captain Jean Lafitte only pirate to steal money from King Henry the VIII and get away. With the money stolen my ancestor actually founded New Orleans way back. That kind of seems like self promotion to me? Whatever it was, it needed to be deleted. In the Venn diagram of CSD, perhaps this was closer to the centre ground of G3 than G11, but I'd have thought that it wasn't worth anyone's time changing the tag when deletion is so obvious, let alone discussing the finer points after the fact. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It reads to me not as a hoax, but some sort of contrived, synthesized nonsense that made sense at the time. Does not read coherently enough to be a deliberate hoax. But they were definitely on about some great truth or another, and quite possibly, on something as well. No CSD category is a perfect fit, but at least with G11 we can assume some good, if misguided or cockeyed, faith. With no vandalism from the /22 in the last month, and a constructive edit 3 months ago, it's hard to apply a vandal label, so I prefer to assume good faith until solid proof arises that they meant to perpetrate a hoax.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as an effort by a very disturbed person to self-promote as a magician with a special type of supernatural power. I suspect that psychiatrists hear this type of thing frequently. Accordingly, I think that G11 is entirely appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that we've gone pathological, have you ever been around someone who is high, or really drunk, or tripping? The flight of ideas can be quite flighty. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. Fifty years ago, I was a very active volunteer with a youth group that operated a free clinic and a crisis phone line in the suburbs north of Detroit. I talked on many occasions with kids who were having a bad experience with LSD, or were suicidal, or mentally ill in various ways. If you are interested in the social milieu, read 1970 Memorial Park riot, which is the only Wikipedia article where I have mentioned myself by name, quoting from a half century old newspaper article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Cause people believe That they're gonna get away for the summer --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

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) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Letting’ you know[edit]

Just here to let you know that I changed the color and font on the comments at 331 Dot’s user page. I did not mean for it to be tiny or green and I apologize for that. If you get a spare second, I hope you could take a look and respond. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lima Bean Farmer: On 2020-10-04 at 08:29:53 @Boing! said Zebedee: added the talk page to the partial block, so I doubt the advisability of removing said partial block. In any event, I would not modify or remove w/o prior discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was already blocked from the talk page. Boing said Zebedee has already blocked me from that page on September 10. They only adjusted the block a few days ago to fit their own criteria. What would you not modify without prior discussion? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any block "modification" by another admin. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, but the article is not a promotion.[edit]

the text only shows what the company is about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.141.110 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitor, however please see User:deepfriedokra/g11 18:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Maybe during the editing process I still make a little mistake, so please ignore everything and forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.153.253.38 (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)[edit]

Good evening,
I learned that you freeze this page because of edit warring.
That is OK to me.
However, I am surprised that you freeze it "post-bellum" and not "ante-bellum", as is normally the case.
Especially since discussions are going on in the talk page; also between contributors who have not been involved in this edit war (And I am among them).
Why don't you apply WP:STABLE?
thanks in advance --Emigré55 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't care about which version is which. The matter needs discussion. This is not a contest with winners and losers. I'm sure if consensus results in a version other than the current version being accepted, the currently protected version will not matter. The whole matter of which version is up now will be mooted. The purpose of protection is to stop the disruption, not for me to choose which version is currently up. I protect the version that is up when I click the protect button. My advice is to discuss the content and sourcing on the talk page. Unless there is a serious BLP matter that I've protected, I see no reason to dig through and find a "better" version than the current one. Again, please discuss content and sourcing on the talk page

Gow School[edit]

Thanks for cleaning it up. Meters (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Senzo Mazingiza.[edit]

Deepfriedokra Hello Admin. i am sorry for any inconvenience. i have created a page Senzo Mazingiza, but unfortunately the speedy deletion Tag were placed to that article and the reason provided was "the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic" actually i dont understand if you can take your time and search the person he in another country (South Africa) and i am in Tanzania, and person we are talking about he is very notable not only in Africa, the person known for his football carrier, he is a young generation football changer. Even FIFA knows him, and they have even acknowledge his presence in football carrier i have provided a lot of Citation to prove every statement i write about him, but also i may be not that smart on article creation but in here we help each other when u see an orphan article you help to improve it or to rewrite it that is what i know. Please i am asking to create it again please help when when you see there is something wrong, i need to see something that i have created going far, but not to promote the person who i dont even know or even met. Thank You SIR. 4realtz (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@4realtz: Uhhhh. You need to read Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising#Typical signs of blatant advertising' and User:Deepfriedokra/promo and copy edit to clean out the promocruft. New article creation can be difficult, but you can also ask for help at the TEAHOUSE]. Lord knows, my first two attempts got deleted pretty quickly.. Writing ad copy is very different from encyclopedia editing. It can be hard to unlearn. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra ooh... okay i understand. thanks for the explanations. But can it still be there while improving it, while learning. i will alo ask for help from WP:TEAHOUSE as you advised. THANK YOU AGAIN ADMIN 4realtz (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some okra for you![edit]

Deep fried okra
I am giving this to you to congratulate your hard work through Wikipedia. Your contributions really amaze me. Cupper52 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory D. Saxton' Article "fast deletion"[edit]

Hello there, I noticed you deleted my article on "Gregory D. Saxton" and I would really appreciate it if you give me some information to improve my article. I am creating a page for a faculty member for a York U. professor and using existing York U. faculty pages as a template/guide. Moreover, the York U. faculty member content is not "copyrighted." Would you please let me know what was wrong with my article that caused fast deletion?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maygol Bandehali (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maygol Bandehal: Thanks for your note. Please see User:deepfriedokra/g11. Aside from the problem with the promotional tone of the source, content must be expressly creative commons, GFDL or public domain to be used on Wikipedia. Please see User:deepfriedokra/g12. Contrary to your assertion, the source is clearly copyrighted, bearing the notice Copyright 2020 The Schulich School of Business, York University. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 35823[edit]

So, did you work out who accused him of treason? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(suppressed giggle) @Boing! said Zebedee: TBH, tl;dr. Never got that far. Went cross-eyed. Gave up. Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason. --John Harington (writer) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn dilemma ?[edit]

Autumn dilemma ?

Fall's coolness invites me outdoors
To do things that were prevented by Summer's heat.
For instance--
Walking the dog,
Walking in the park,
Walking the dog in the park,
Taking pictures of the dog and the park.
On the other hand,
I could instead sit before my computer,
Sifting countless fruitless (and sometimes embittered)
UTRS requests.
Oh! Which should I choose? 

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ever have one of those days when God's been takin' the Mickey all day long, and you know as soon as you go to sleep, the STAT nurse from your brother's hospital is going to call you to have THE TALK. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding UTRS[edit]

In UTRS, it says in 8th point at 'Reviewing an appeal': "If the unblock has been repeatedly declined and resubmitted, consider directing the ticket to Tool Admins for temporary UTRS ban", why should this be? --94.73.37.114 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because some users make frivolous or abusive appeals, in the same way they abused their talk pages, and make it clear that only disruption will be coming from them. A few, well, pathological sockpuppeteers, for instance , who have shown they are somehow compelled to perform unspeakable or just plain nonsensical acts on Wikimedia projects. There are others who have simply shown an inability to stay away for six months before appealing. It would be cruel to allow these sad individuals to continuously hurt themselves and dig themselves into deeper holes. Banning such as these from UTRS encourages them to get on with lives outside of Wikipedia. I know from personal experience how hard that can be. Hope that helps, Best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Say, you wouldn't know anyone like that, would you? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my future on wikipedia[edit]

Thank you for your reply regarding my appeal. Since you probably read the reason of my block which is as you can see expired, I wish to ask you should I even bother to contribute to English Wikipedia being labelled as sock. My concern is if I support some other editor or enter a discussion this block will be main "argument" against me which can jeopardize people who don't deserve it. And as I already noticed there is campaign against me i.e. the user who reported me pinged 4 different editors on this page [[20]] without any further explanation of my case meaning that everybody thinks that I was those unregistered IP which is proven that is not true. I believe that I am and will be subject of WP:HARASSMENT. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Theonewithreason: Well, yes, continue. Just be careful to avoid WP:edit warring. If reverted, stop and discuss, seeking consensus. Be willing to not make an edit if you cannot gain wp:consensus for it. Do not edit while logged out. Hopefully, you are not coordinating edits with someone off-wiki. I fail to see why you assert "harassment". You might want to avoid editing about anything to do with the Balkans. Like the region itself, the subject area is fraught with nationalistic gamesmanship and propaganda. It is an area of content that is difficult even for experienced editors. There are millions of other articles on Wikipedia in need of improvement. To answer your own question, you must ask yourself if you are here to improve the world's largest free content encyclopedia or to bring to Wikipedia some sort of nationalist struggle that is hundreds of years old. Only you can answer that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, no I didn't edited offline, I supported one IP on page Drobnjaci but it was not because of him it was because my edit was deleted without explanation, so I entered into dispute, regarding Balkan themes well I do have some interest because I find some historical or current people (mostly science and sports biographies) from there interesting but basically you will not see me on pages regarding i.e wars or something like that, that is why I showed you this example, I had nothing to do with that page, never contributed or discussed on TP. I feel like I have a target pointed on my head. Theonewithreason (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying[edit]

I didn't want to post this on their talk page because I've told them not to post on mine. And, well, they'll obviously just scream harassment. But there's also this which was aimed at CASSIOPEIA and NEDOCHAN. So the whole "it was the first personal attack, but it wasn't my fault!" nonsense doesn't quite wash. Just saying. – 2.O.Boxing 12:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find content disputes incredibly boring. Shrill rudeness is often block worthy. If they user their talk page for anything but an unblock request that addresses their behavior, they risk losing access to said talk page.16:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC) --Deepfriedokra (talk)

Misclick?[edit]

Er.. huh, young Fritter? Please compare [21]. (What a fine dog in your edit notice carousel!) Bishonen | tålk 11:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Yoicks. No idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I oughta yank yer rollback fer that! GeneralNotability (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think I though I was reverting Locke Cole . Weird. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undid Edit[edit]

Hi,

You reviewed and removed an edit I made, I believe it would be as a result of missing citations. Will citing another Wikipedia page do? Or including links to news articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiroegbu (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iiroegbu: No, we cannot use Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that was not the only problem with that edit. It would need a WP:reliable source, yes, but it also looked like original research and political soapboxing. We cite sources, but we do not interpret them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You missed this one.......[edit]

Hey,

You missed this edit that the IP made. 5 albert square (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ddddddddddamn! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Biden[edit]

Per Wikipedia rules, before I post on WP:RFPP I'm requesting here first. Yesterday you fully locked the Hunter Biden article. Wikipedia rules for fully locking pages state "Articles with persistent vandalism or edit warring", however the edit warring looks relatively minor (only lasted one day) to increase to a stringent full block. The block should be removed and returned to extended confirmed. Yodabyte (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yodabyte: If you think it's ready, gladly. Thanks. BTW, quoting the rules at admins is redundant. A simple "no longer needed" or "I think this excessive" suffices. Best. I mean, I protected on request and am perfectly willing to unprotect on request. If it doesn't work out, then someone can reapply the higher level. Oh, as I recall, the request was for two weeks. I had my doubts, and at first used a shorter duration. I'm here to serve. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Courtesy @Muboshgu: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

Sorry for filing in arbitration! Will bring to the appropriate space.--WMrapids (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Username[edit]

I call myself Technobot33 because I am a fan of the Technobots an autobot subgroup from Transformers. I don't think this counts as an unacceptable username or violates the account naming policies. However, if this wikis staff care then I would be willing to change to another account or change my username. Technobot33 (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Technobot33: Personally, I don't particularly disagree with you, but WP:BOTNAME states

The following types of username are not permitted because they may be misleading in a way that disrupts the project:. . .Usernames that could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" (which is used to identify bot accounts) or a "script" (which alludes to automated editing processes), unless the account is of that type.

(sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then in that case then i'll let the admins deside. If they deside that it violates their terms i'll create another account. Technobot33 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Technobot33: Welp, this admin decided to discuss with you 'cause he doesn't like blocking constructive users. Not to say the next admin to come along won't block you. (sigh 2) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@Technobot33: I'm not going to block you either, but yes, your username is prohibited. I suggest you request a rename rather than waiting for someone to block you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I requested the name change. Farewell, Till all are One.Technobot33 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Technobot33: rename to Farewell, Till all are One --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Emigré55. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review v. Appeal[edit]

What do you think of this:

  • Define a "block review" as a challenge to the correctness of a block, i.e. whether the block should have been made in the first place, under ADMINACCT. Anyone can initiate a block review.
  • Define a "block appeal" as a request to unblock without challenging the correctness of the original block. Only the blocked editor can initiate a block appeal.
  • Both involve a request to unblock, but for different reasons.

Would you support/oppose updating PAGs to say the above? Lev!vich 18:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is fraught with instruction creep. I think the rules we already have are confusing enough without adding more words that will be misinterpreted and gain new, unintended meaning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Write The Article[edit]

Hello Dear Can You Please Tell Me Whats Wroing in The Article so i will Re Write The Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrXhadow (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrXhadow: Thanks for your note. Reviewing your talk page, it looks like it contained material copyrighted elsewhere. Please see the notice on your talk page for more about that. And it looks like it contained advocational content. Please see here and here for some guidance on that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


[[yo|Deepfriedokra} Thanks For The Action Reply Acually The contained where not included the copyright material i am sure all content where free of copy right

i will change the pic but can you please republish the article which you have deleted i will do my best for the next time Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrXhadow (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help navigating through Wikipedia[edit]

Hello Deepfriedokra, I am back again, sadly. Months now and I am still finding it difficult navigating through Wikipedia especially as regards notability. I need like a crash course or something to serve as a guide so I won't step out of line. This Wikipedian's heart too fragile, I can't bear another flag that's why I have been so low here. Just observing, wishing and wondering how you all got to this level.

A guide using your story as roadmap would be quite helpful here. The 30 Days Of Wikipedia challenge I planned embarking on in October was thrown out of the window because I was demoralized to say the list.

Kudos once again. Cheers. IJ30ma Irene (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IJ30ma Irene: eye I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IJ30ma Irene: TBH, most of my article creations have been about borderline notability subjects. Finding enough significant coverage can be daunting. Rather than trying to create articles, I focused my attention on gnomeing, vandalism reversion and little things. NOw. I've so little time that I spend all on admin areas. The short answer is, there is no easy answer. It takes huge amounts of research and my time is better spent elsewhere. If any talk page watchers have advice, please offer. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Thanks for the short answer. Though I am more confused than I was before IJ30ma Irene (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IJ30ma Irene: I just had to come back here to say that @Yngvadottir: really saved the day with her short note on my talk page. I haven't been able to read most of the links because of arrangement; lengthy words scattered all around just makes my head spin, I end up with a headache. But the note is precise and not all over the place. Thanks alot IJ30ma Irene (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020[edit]

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) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
I've requested a couple admin actions today and it seems like you're always there to block a spammer or protect a page. Thanks for contributing your time to wikipedia! Ghinga7 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another encounter with overt racism[edit]

Hi, I very much appreciated your kind and helpful engagement at ANI the last time I had a run-in with an overtly racist editor: [[22]] At that time you told me I could feel free to contact you directly if it happened again. Well, it's happened again, though the nature of the racism is different this time and not directly targeted at me. Here is my recent post about it: [[23]] I hope I haven't misunderstood the nature of your invitation. If this is an overstep or could be considered canvasing I apologize. I'm really not 100% sure how to handle this type of behavior when I encounter it (thankfully relatively rarely), so any guidance you might be able to offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: while I was typing this the user was blocked. Please feel free to disregard everything here except the note of appreciation. Generalrelative (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trump is the real winner[edit]

When will this user ever have talk page and email access? Just interested to know. --94.73.38.128 (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you care about that? Are you to person behind that account? --Yamla (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When/if they successfully request unblock via UTRS, as indicated i the block notice. In these trying times, we should all care for one another.Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Yamla, a gentleman/lady, whatever he/she/they might think, should never ask. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Yamla, I would never create an impersonation username. Definitely this is not me who owns this account. Did I say I care about the block, I don't really care about the talk page or email access revocation. it is indeed correct. --94.73.38.128 (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you 1 big thing, this account is set up for impersonation as some idiot is acting like Trump has won or what. --94.73.38.128 (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now an Italian IP is doing the same on another similar article.[edit]

In the page List of countries by average wage now an Italian IP 80.117.253.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing the same changes that "Giolocam" has done yesterday, I highly suspect this might be a sock account of the same user given the fact he's 1. Removing the proper order to mess up the table to put Italy in an higher place than it belongs and 2. Just exactly after he got a partial block he's doing the same edits as he did yesterday with his account. --Pfarla (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Pfarla Protected the page. You need to report this in the established thread on ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Deepfriedokra done. Thanks for the advice. --Pfarla (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archivebot?[edit]

How would you like an archivebot? Your talk over is very long, which can make it hard for users on low bandwidth connections to communicate with you. I could install an archiving system that includes easily searchable archive files of reasonable length. Jehochman Talk 12:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: Thank you for you kind offer, but if you click User talk:Deepfriedokra/archives you will see I artisanally handcraft each archival with loving care. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Jehochman Talk 13:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


You forgot to say "constructively motivating irritation"[edit]

Constructing a better Wikipedia is perilous work

[24] EEng 18:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment at my user talk page[edit]

The support is appreciated, but at this point I think that the editor involved has received sufficient guidance at the now-closed AN thread, hasn't done anything untoward to me in the past day or two, and no further dogpiling is needed. I'd rather avoid reigniting a fight, so I've gone ahead an archived the section. signed, Rosguill talk 22:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My second problem[edit]

Is also your attitude. My impression is, you did not even consider, what happened there, you only defend the other admin (?). This is absolutely not a healthy signature. 80.81.2.8 (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate more on 1) my attitude and 2) my alleged defense of . . .whom? Please elaborate on why my signature is unhealthy. Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Elgarsenigma"[edit]

Although it contains the string "arse", Elgarsenigma (talk · contribs) is pretty clearly a false positive; it reads as "Elgar's Engima", a reference to the Enigma Variations. -- The Anome (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: enigmatic??? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as 'Elgar's enema' when I first saw it. Perhaps the 'arse' subliminally affected my all too impressionable mind. GirthSummit (blether) 20:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With Elgar's like this, who needs enemas? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection[edit]

Stand by Me Doraemon 2[edit]

Full Protection: High level of IP vandalism. 47.9.119.56 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

Hello Admin. I have got to know that, a User name User:Sultan Allana is doing disruptive edits to many Wiki page such as WP:RFPP, WP:RFA and much more. He is currently blocked by User:Widr forthe reason- advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. You should take more strict actions with him and when he is unblocked keep an eye on him because he has erased everything from my user page more than 3 times and hasdone this thing for many more user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.9.119.56 (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toranj Hotel[edit]

You have an essay which lists various words that are typically found in pages that are deleted as G11. I think that my rules about what is G11 are similar to yours, which is that we both avoid the G11 tagging except in the most obvious cases. I have two rules that I will mention, one of which is similar to yours, and one of which you probably did not bother to formalize. The first is that if the page contains marketing buzzspeak, then it is spam, unless there is a verifiable claim of corporate notability. Sometimes I see a company whose "company page" contains marketing buzzspeak, but the company is listed on a stock exchange. In that case, the company is notable, and the real problem is the paid editor, and the article should be stubbed down to a stub. The second is that Wikipedia is written in the formal third person. If an article contains the first person plural, "we", or contains the second person, talking to the reader, it should probably be deleted. I saw the use of the second person, addressed to the reader, as well as other puffery, and I tagged it and you deleted it.

The use of the first or second person is usually an indication of spam. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page creation: Wycombe Abbey Primary School[edit]

Hi

I'm trying to help Wycombe Abbey School Hong Kong create a wiki page, which is authorized by the school. Is there any thing needed to be improved for successful page creation?

here is my email address, vlau@reasonable.hk feel free to contact me.

Best Regards Vic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viclau (talk • contribs) 02:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Viclau::Please note the sign above. Please read and heed WP:PAID and WP:COI. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must meet inclusion requirements ie WP:CORP. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Please read the notices on your talk page about using material copyrighted elsewhere. Please see the links in my deletion notice on your talk page for information on avoiding promotional editing. Thank you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

71.210.48.166[edit]

Please block user:71.210.48.166 asap. CLCStudent (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with article Raleigh-Egypt High School[edit]

Hi im Bryson Johsnon and i need help with this school article. It needs a pushpin map, so can you help me by adding one. Bryson Johnson (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bryson Johnson: Love to. Don't know how. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i'll ask somebody else. Bryson Johnson (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


My Article is Fully Completed[edit]

Hello Deepfriedokra My Article Shabahat Ali Shah is now completed can you pleass review this once where i am taking a misstake ? can you pleaes approve this or let me know what should i do more now Thanks ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrXhadow (talk • contribs) 04:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Guide me Which Content Need to remove ? There is no any Promotional Content And Details about Shabahat Ali Shah Can You Please highlight Little Bit ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrXhadow (talk • contribs) 08:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Deepfriedokra/promo. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Unblocking Needy Award
Congratulations! You get this award for unblocking needy users. Keep doing this. DeepGlow2009 (talk • contribs)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Miles Morales[edit]

What the heck is going on here? This edit notice doesn't make a lot of sense to me. jp×g 03:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Jp: There was some confusion among editors as to which spiderman was which. Can probably delete it if there's been no further disruption. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: From more than two years ago. Looks unneeded. Deleted it --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also looks like that was added when the page was "Spiderman (Miles Morales)," which makes that editnotice a lot more sense. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too true. Probably why the confusion/disruption stopped. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new page creation: Wycombe Abbey Primary School of Hong Kong[edit]

Could provide more specific information for the deleted wiki page I created before? I've tried several times but still being deleted. It's not a commercial wiki page, just a introduction.

looking forward to your reply. Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viclau (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Viclau: I can't be more specific than the messages I've already left you. That you keep creating promotional pages for that certainly gives the appearance that you are here to promote it. And you keep creating the same content with different titles. (How come?) As recommended, you should follow the process via WP:AfC. Before beginning, you should look for sourcing that shows the subject meets the notability requirement for organizations, WP:NCORP. New page creation is very difficult. Certainly my first attempts were deleted. You might want to try improving the encyclopedia in other ways. WP:Community portal has lists of pages that need improvements. There are thousands if not millions of articles on Wikipedia that need to be improved. Hope that helps. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer Report[edit]

Wasn't stray! I'll be trying to keep an eye on things. Cheers, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Airplaneman: Thanks. I tried to make the thing neutral, but once you remove the political posturing, nothing is left. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely lots of room for improvement. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice[edit]

Hi, Deepfriedokra. I hope you don't mind, but I was wondering if you help me understand how to start the process to have this deleted? There seem to be a lot of pages about deletion, and I am a little confused. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: Gah. You could request deletion at WP:MFD, but I see deeper issues that might wind up at WP:AN/I. Over a year ago? Looks stale. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it violated the civility guidelines back in April last year so I wouldn't image there would be much discussion at MFD. If MFD is the way to go, do you know if I use the Twinkle steps explained at WP:AFDHOWTO for that? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have TWINKLE, you should be able to click the XFD button. Without TWINKLE, it's an arduous process indeed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's MfD. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was not hard at all after using Twinkle. Thank you for the help. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That "nonsense" you encountered[edit]

You might be interested in this section of my user page. --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 13:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020[edit]

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)[reply]

Checkuser blocks[edit]

Just a note -- a block done by a checkuser doesn't have the weight of a "checkuser block" (i.e., don't unblock unless you are a CU) unless it's explicitly notated as such. I tend to reserve it for habitual or extremely obnoxious abusers. My phrase, "checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts", just means I looked and verified, not that I am raising the severity of the block. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: Thanks. Confusing as I never know and don't want to be hauled before ArbCom. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a draft page[edit]

Hi,

I am trying to take the page I recently created from drafts to actual article. I am not getting an option to do the same. Can you please help me for the same.

The page I am talking about is Draft:Anuj_Puri

Went through all the links - but I don't have the option to move a page from Draft to Articles.

Would really appreciate this.

Dxrtr1911 (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxrtr1911: That's because it had been deleted per WP:G11 at Anuj_Puri. Please submit for review by WP:AfC reviewers. Please see my comments on the draft. IMO, it is not ready for article space. --Deepfriedokra (talk)12:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:D4135t~enwiki's advised explanation[edit]

Please do not block me for being a sockpuppet, I did not know about sockpuppetry in my early days at Wikipedia. Hayta= 01:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D4135t~enwiki (talk • contribs) [reply]

What? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel International[edit]

Thank you for write-protecting the article Hillel International! I wonder if you can also restore the article to the November 16 version which is the latest version before the disruptive edits began? ImTheIP (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I made to the FarmVille page[edit]

Hi,

I was the person who added the development team information to the FarmVille page. Another editor told me that you removed it because it was unsourced.

(talk page watcher) @Mark Skaggs: WP:UNSOURCED. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The information is "unsourced" but the person who wrote it David Gray is the source. He was on the team, kept records and still works at the company.

Do we need to have a journalist write a story and then reference that as a source?

Or can we somehow sign a doc verifying/swearing to the validity or truth to this information?

Also, if we referenced my wikipedia entry (Mark Skaggs) that I did not create to add validity to it?


Thanks for your help on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Skaggs (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Skaggs: I did not remove it. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." RE works at the company, please see above. Wikipedia has little information in what a subject's employee says about a subject. Having a journalist write a story? No. That's not suitable. We? So you are connected with the subject. Please read and heed WP:PAID and WP:COI. Clearly you have a conflict of interest. I will post to your talk page as well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This is my first time trying to contribute information Wikipedia after donating and supporting for years. You'll have to give allowance for my in experience and not knowing all the expert arcane notations or how to do fancy editing techniques. Also because I don't know the inner workings and interactions between you and other editors. Nor do I really care to spend time on those. I was simply trying to understand why the good intentioned effort to add information to your platform was rejected.

I said "you removed it" because one of your other editors said that. It's confusing to see that neither of you say you removed the information even though the system points me to you two.

Your "We ?" comment makes it seem like you've discovered a crime! Apparently you didn't see my name on the list of information that was removed by "you" (wikipedia)? I wasn't trying to hide anything. I worked with the Author of the information many years ago. I was just sharing what the person shared on FB as a way to save the info from getting lost in time. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).. Your response makes like I was trying to cheat your platform or something. I said We" was because I used to be part of a team that worked together with the author and "we" + others know this information be true. And "we" thought this would be a useful contribution to your platform.

Maybe there's an approach where you can separate out good people with good intentions and work with them, and then keep the rest of your interaction style for the cheaters, liars and exploiters you must be dealing with? "We" are good people with good intensions.

Here's a collection of references from sources on my connection to FarmVille and work at Zynga. You say you won't an article written by journalist the original FarmVille team, do any of these publications or authors add enough credibility for you? I'm asking because I'm trying to work within your rules and it is hard to believe that no journalist can write an story/article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Skaggs https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-media-videogams-idUSTRE6BR3XY20101228 https://techland.time.com/2011/04/04/whats-zynga-planning-next/ https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/2010/02/19/19venturebeat-farmville-takes-home-a-prize-and-changes-an-i-6715.html http://allthingsd.com/20110301/zyngas-farmville-and-cityville-developer-spills-the-beans-on-what-makes-games-great/ https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Horizons/2012/0726/Why-Zynga-needs-Facebook https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444657804578053171742809466 http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2011/02/mass-effect-2-snags-top-prize-at-interactive-achievement-awards/1 https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/zynga-adds-ville-games-makes-stronger-mobile-push/story?id=16654902 https://www.aol.com/2011/11/15/farmville-creator-great-game-cake/ https://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/FarmVille-becomes-social-media-powerhouse-3213773.php https://venturebeat.com/2015/10/14/how-to-cater-to-your-players-demands-and-know-your-audience/ https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/5/8545093/zynga-empires-and-allies-rts https://www.casino.org/features/zynga-history/ https://kotaku.com/the-future-of-pc-gaming-according-to-the-creator-of-fa-5673623 https://www.gadgetsnow.com/it-services/Meet-man-behind-FarmVille/articleshow/10739249.cms https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/16/online-game-farmville-turning-hipsters-farmers/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/05/06/zynga-banking-on-new-gaming-strategy-to-compete-on-mobile/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2009/facebooks-farmville-has-become-an-obsession-classroom-distraction/ https://www.telugu360.com/rajamouli-team-farmville-game-designer/ https://venturebeat.com/2018/03/06/farmville-co-creator-mark-skaggs-leaves-indias-moonfrog-labs-after-2-years/ https://www.pocketgamer.biz/interview/67020/why-mark-skaggs-left-zynga-for-moonfrog/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/24/mark-skaggs-moonfrog/ https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-07-farmville-co-creator-announces-departure-from-moonfrog-labs https://starlocalmedia.com/mckinneycouriergazette/news/more-than-a-game-farmville-creator-mark-skaggs-shows-middle-school-gamers-how-he-makes/article_786f7475-c10f-57eb-bda9-3e88afca1ec0.html https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1016592/The-Lessons-I-Learned-from https://www.mcvuk.com/development-news/farmville-creator-mark-skaggs-quits-zynga/ https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/s/era-closes-zynga-farmville-co-200515715.html business-standard.com/article/technology/farmville-co-creatormark-skaggs-is-now-looking-at-india-117071401466_1.html https://www.thestatesman.com/tag/mark-skaggs https://bfme.fandom.com/wiki/Mark_Skaggs https://thetechportal.com/2016/02/25/mark-skaggs-creator-of-farmville-joins-bangalore-based-moonfrog-labs/ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jun/27/zynga-unleashes-social-network-farmville-2 Mark Skaggs (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Skaggs: I have made no edits to FarmVille. I did answer a question you asked about why your edit was reverted. I replied to you on my talk page. I welcomed you, told you how to change your signature, explained what triggered the edit filter, asked you to read and heed COI and PAID, and asked you to verify that your user name be confirmed via VTRS to prevent impersonation. I'm sorry you have a problem with any of this. No idea why you dumped all those external links on my talk page. They are not germane to the issue at hand. Please read and heed WP:COI and WP:PAID. Please see this page. Because of your conflict of interest, it would be best if you suggest edits on the article page and not edit the article directly. I cannot determine intentions. I can only see your edits. I have assumed good faith by informing you in a civil manner of the situation involving your conflict of interest. Again, I'm sorry if this has upset you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Please see my message at your reply here. I am the IP address who requested to protect 2022 Philippine presidential election. 120.29.66.122 (talk) 15:15, 07 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Requesting permission. -R.G. (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Apologies.-R.G. (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving my talk page[edit]

Do you think I could archive all my old warnings and unblock requests? Or would that seem too much like trying to hide my... sketchy past? PLease advise, --sithjarjar (talk | contribs | email) 18:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SithJarJar666: Yes, archive. Fresh start. New beginning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, will do --sithjarjar (talk | contribs | email) 18:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, except for the last two threads --sithjarjar (talk | contribs | email) 18:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Must not have done a thorough enough check on the name I wanted, sorry;) --sithjarjar (talk | contribs | email) 20:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SithJarJar666: Not your fault. The bot did not catch it and Central Auth doesn't either. I found out when I clicked the button to rename. Such is the lot of the global rename. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Account creator rights?[edit]

I saw that you granted yourself account creator rights, and I wanted to know what was going on. InvalidOStalk 13:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@InvalidOS: Sometimes I need to create accounts for UTRS IP (anon only) blocked users that need help. Did I do it wrong? I seem to remember creating accounts in the past, but it's been a while, and sometimes I forget things. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: I don't know if you did anything wrong. I guess if you hadn't created accounts in a while, you or someone else might've removed the right since you weren't using it. I was asking because I just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything weird going on. Honestly, it probably would've been a better idea to just check the account creation log, but I didn't get much sleep last night so I guess I just didn't think to do that. Probably not my duty to look into this anyway. :p InvalidOStalk 14:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer such cases from UTRS to ACC. Account creator is redunant for admins. Neither are needed to create accounts (for others) unless there is a need to override the title blacklist or AnitSpoof. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t it a bit of a run around to refer people from one big process to another big process? Usually the point at which I lose motivation for whatever it is I came to do... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89:1) Thought it was. Been a while. 2) I see no reason to further inconvenience and frustrate an already inconvenienced and frustrated user caught up in a range block by adding another (time and energy consuming) process. And I never override anti-spoof or blacklist, even as a global renamer. 3) What @ProcrastinatingReader: said. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of issues with it. You don't have sufficient information at UTRS and could easily end up creating an account for a sock. You are either compromising any account that you create (putting the password in a UTRS response) or are retaining PII (email address) in UTRS. Neither of those should ever be done. Based on your account creation logs you are compromising the accounts. I confirmed this for two of the accounts that you created last year. All admins (plus stewards) have access to the credentials and could freely use the accounts. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will send them to ACC. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this user[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=994394533&oldid=994394048. Saw you are active admin right now. Please help, my RFC was removed, my AN report also. starship.paint (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - WP:MULTI - Starship.paint please discuss at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#What are the rules for copyrighted content. Cabayi (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi: - thanks, I think people’s attention have been brought now. I’m confident the matter will be settled :) starship.paint (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent[edit]

Please review request for page protection asap. needs protection Thank youBezeq2 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - WP:MULTI - Bezeq2 please discuss at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#What are the rules for copyrighted content. Cabayi (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man about my probation[edit]

Hey you did an evaluation of my probation last August and unfortunately I made two mistakes, I requested for an extension or a repeat evaluation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deepfriedokra/archive_2020-02#Evaluation_of_my_probation

This time I'm glad to report that I performed all that you requested without a hitch these last 5 months after the previous probation evaluation. :D So, I'm just updating you on my probation performance thus far. BTW I still cannot get my hands on the book I got my intial info from, before the library closed, and it will remain closed until March 2021. In the meantime, I've tried ordering the book, to screenshot it to show that my previous edit (that made me violate one condition) is legit, but even the publishing company I contacted said they are out of copies.

https://i.imgur.com/vFBPQcQ.png

So unless and until the library opens on March 2021 or when the publishing company releases new copies, or I somehow manage to get a copy of the book I extracted the information, I forgot to attribute, I cannot as of yet prove that my edits were sourced.

At this rate, I can't give you proof of my innocence which derailed my original probation, until March 2021. Is that ok with you? How would you rate my performance thus far? Regards! --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think any uploads of copyrighted material would violate WP:COPYVIO. I think you need to let that issue go. You should discuss sourcing on the article talk page. There is a Template:Cite for books and other off-line materials. Innocence? Not a court of law. Otherwise, good work. @Chipmunkdavis and Bishonen: Appreciate your feedback. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been keeping tabs or anything, but there is some relevant discussion on Talk:Philippines. There were some poor source choices (part of a habit of finding and using really old sources) and added flaws in interpretation (eg). This recent edit was concerning but minor. Use of citation templates is much improved, and at a quick glance appears to be quite regular.
What I don't see in this request is a reason for bringing this up now. What does this evaluation achieve? What Wikipedia activity is being prevented? As said this isn't a court of law, and there's no "innocence" to prove. My interpretation is that the editing restrictions are part of a process to stimulate productive editing that understands Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If there was a proposed action that is being prevented, assessing that would be a necessary case for evaluation. Otherwise, if they seem to be working, what change is being requested? CMD (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChipmunkDavis, about that last edit, I thought that changing the first sentence to conform to the title of the subsection was a matter of correcting a formatting error, which as far as I know doesn't require a reference. Sorry about using older sources, I was thinking before, that those were legitimate, since the sources were closer to the date of the historical event, thank you for educating me that more modern sources were required. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copa União 1987[edit]

I am Brazilian and about the issue Copa União 1987 Championship there is a lot of mistakes at the page. The real Champion, the uniforme and the semi-final are wrong. Perhaps some team suporter did it, but by the Supreme Court the real Champion is Sport Recife and not the one showed at the page. It needs to be edited with the right information. There was not any kind of vandalism as was said. The page was edited to show the truth and wrongly reverted keeping the lies. RB9610 (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC) @RB9610: That's great! Please discuss content and sourcing on the article talk page. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ECP on the Ezhava garden[edit]

I saw that you were conflicted in imposing ECP on Ezhava. I just blocked a few socks (there are likely more than a couple of masters), but the are trying to fork out subtopics or the same topic under different titles to push their POV. The trouble has been going on as Sitush is on a much needed break and there's really no one to police article content on these. If you have time you may want to keep an eye out on anything related to Thiyya, Chekavar and various spelling variants too. I'm not on much these days, so socks have been operating for months at a stretch too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alt acct[edit]

How can I disclose some other account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustynaCloud (talk • contribs) 10:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JustynaCloud: template:User alternative account --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Celco85[edit]

Celco85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Thank you for yesterday adding more information about references to his talk page. I had in the last day or so reverted some of his edits on John Hewson and Michael Kroger. Until now he has then gone and done something else to the articles concerned but this time he has reverted my reversions. I dont want to get into an editing war so am leaving them at the moment. What do you suggest we should do in this situation? Talk:John Hewson describes previous problems I have encountered. Yesterday I did report him as a potential vandal but the request went stale.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - your notes on his talk page were excellent - much better than what I had done. And he/she deliberately disregards the rules and continues to make incorrect edits. Even his reply on the Admin board does not make much sense. Unfortunately no admin seems to have picked this up so far. I will go through and revert any more of his/her edits not reverted by anyone else once, hopefully, he/she is blocked. Have a good 2021.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see he is sourcing but not using the right format. That's not really blockable. Are you saying he is not using WP:reliable sources? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In many of the edits the sources would be unreliable and the edits frivolous such as [25] while in articles such as Brighton Icebergers the latest string of edits [26] they do seem frivolous and not related to the subject. I realise that the incorrect format only is not blockable but in many cases it lakes a long time to clean them up as the same reference may be used a number of times or in some cases the references do not support the article. That is where I am not sure what we should do about it.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, I was about to burn an edit at AN/I, but this is a less embarrassing venue for the editor concerned. I think the overriding concerns are CIR and BLP. I did a deep clean on Brighton Icebergers and despite a stiff note from me on the talk page, the editor is continuing to noodle around on both the article and the talk page. Note what I removed in this edit concerning someone named Greene. The sources given for that were: (a) an obituary of Locco's brother that mentions neither the Locco with whom the article is concerned, nor the Icebergers (I naively assumed "Frank" must have been the guy's real name for it to have been cited, and rewrote the article with him as deceased, on which point the editor corrected me) and (b) this source (search in browser for "Greene" or go to p. 38), which tells a story of alleged malfeasance with only an incidental relationship to the baths, none to the club, and not specifying who had the "punch up" that our article was gleefully mentioning. (Inserted in 2018 by Smokeyfire, who is now indeffed for block evasion and BLP violations.) The editor has since continued with BLP and NOTFORUM violations on the talk page and noodled around with various coatrack additions to the article: removed by Canterbury Tail, 14 edits, removed by Fleet Lists except that the editor has also been uploading and adding UNDUE images, the latest of which, of the Locco brothers, remains in the article; the previous one, File:John & Frank Locco.jpg, I wondered whether I should nominate for deletion on Commons, since the patently untrue date of generation casts the claimed authorship into doubt. The concerning edits also extend beyond the baths, the club, John Van Wisse, the Loccos (who I now see they shoehorned into Sports in the Philippines, adding a ref in their most recent edits—Bumbubookworm has removed the material including yet another photo spam), and the person to whom they now refer on their user page. For example, Richard Alston (politician) needs attention from someone conversant with Australian politics; I did a more or less emergency BLP removal of recent edits that appeared to be UNDUE and possibly worse, but it really needs clean-up including evaluation of the balance of all those bare-link refs; the editor responded with this edit, note the "but it's true!" edit summary. Again, other editors have also been involved in apparently unbalancing that BLP, but the editor concerned shows no sign of comprehending that shoving material on their personal hobbyhorses into articles about people and tattling on talk pages about what bad things someone supposedly said about someone else is not permissible. They appear to have stopped tattling about HRC but that's about it. I'm sorry to say this, but I think they need to be stopped. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried. Y'all tried. There was an ignored post at ANI. Guess I'll have to block referencing this discussion. Hate to act unilaterally. But now I've got two editors here and no action at ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you folks noticed the edit history of Gulfzero Charlie (talk · contribs) I've gone and cleaned out this fellow's suburb, Locco and swimming edits 

but not their Liberal pollie edits, some of which may still be in the articles Bumbubookworm (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not hold my breath on the user coming good. He just did three edits on his talk page - two were cleaning up old warnings - no problem but the third one [27] is still the same old rubbish.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now playing around with his user page. I object to this edit [28] which he has subsequently removed. I think this should be removed from the history of the page.Fleet Lists (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked at that; I'm the wrong person to complain to about "liberal political" edits. In my experience, those who do are sometimes anti Liberal propagandists. 12:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

((od}} revdel'd #3. The opportunities for bad puns were excessive. Gah. What would Plato say? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Deepfriedokra, 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,
Heba Aisha (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Heba Aisha (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

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![edit]


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.

Slovak language[edit]

Thank you for protecting the page, but I think it could use a longer block. The vandalism (or sloppy editing, dunno) has been going on for a year now, with a surprising lack of reaction. 83.23.189.85 (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. We'll see. Better to add protection later than to risk collateral damage. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was quick...[edit]

Five minutes from point A to point B. (courtesy ping to JBW) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackcurrantTea: Thanks. from point b to square one. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh music[edit]

When you reverted to status quo, you overwrote Callanec's revert of copyvio.[29] Not sure why it wasn't revdel'd but should probably be removed again. (Also, merry Christmas!) Schazjmd (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr5rrrrgh! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Deepfriedokra!![edit]

TheSandDoctor 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.

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Denisarona (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.

The Signpost: 28 December 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DFODR?[edit]

Regarding this edit, what's DFODR? -- RoySmith (talk)

@RoySmith: User:Deepfriedokra/DFODR. Custom TWINKLE message. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Redirect to user talk. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HELP to unprotect the page as the admin who restricted creation is retired[edit]

Hello, thanks for explaining! But actually the issue which we are facing is still unsolved. Actually someone has created multiple accounts with same IP address and have tried created Rohit KaduDeshmukh’s article with false information. Due to which the page creation has been blocked and restricted only to administrator. Now the issue is that the admin, Bbb23 who has put up this protection is retired and no longer active on Wikipedia. So who should we contact to unprotect the article so that it can be created by some responsible and experienced editor? This all is creating great confusion in Rohit sir’s fan base because if you Google about Rohit KaduDeshmukh, he is a well known and famous actor. But due to someone’s nuisance, it has created a great problem for us. Also we have no knowledge about how Wikipedia editing works as we never got into this. But now we are stuck into this problem which needs to be solved. I please request to guide us to unprotect the page so that we can draft it and some experienced editor can create it. Please we beg you a request. Meheksethi123 (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Meheksethi123[reply]

@Mehekseth123: @AmandaNP: was the protecting admin for Draft:Rohit KaduDeshmukh. The problem is, this was created by someone trying to promote the subject. We'll see what AmandaNP says. I see no indication she is retired. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Favonian: (cough) I think they were in the right place to request unprotection, though I think it best to ask AmandaNP first. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got a point there. Can't help comparing this new editor with others previously active in this area. (double cough – hope we are both following safety guidelines with respect to this activity). Favonian (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you know it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for helping and guiding us. Actually these random edits or page creation from multiple accounts from same IP might be purposely done by some rival so that Rohit KaduDeshmukh page creation gets blocked and Wikipedia may never considered for creation. But it’s our responsibility to inform you because the topic and issue belongs to us. Secondly Wikipedia is a vast knowledge sea. Each topic/article has its own readers or fan base. For us, Rohit KaduDeshmukh sir’s fan base is important. We are in no hurry for Wikipedia page creation. But we would like our editor to be encouraged to create page if the article/subject meets all notable guidelines mentioned. Also very firstly User:Bbb23 was the admin to restrict page creation, but the admin is now showing retired on his page. User:AmandaNP if you need any legal documents for our verification, we could provide it. We aren’t requesting for page creation. We are just requesting to Unprotect the page from creation so that some experienced editors can create it whenever the time is right according to the notable guidelines. Because we (Rohit KaduDeshmukh) are facing this issue due to someone else’ mischievous activity. Meheksethi123 (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Meheksethi123[reply]

Legend Nevada[edit]

Hi,

Just to let you know I've reinstated TPA after Yamla responded on UTRS and on the user's talk page. I didn't see any point in keeping the user waiting considering a couple of others had also backed this up. Just in case you wondered where the appeal had gone to on UTRS :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@5 albert square: Thanks. Had not circled back yet. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Granth Sahib ji[edit]

please send me your email id.

I will send you all the information on raags in Guru Granth Sahib ji.

Including the soft copy of above.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srsseehra (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Srsseehra: Please discuss content and sourcing on the relevant article talk page. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra/archive_2020-02&oldid=1142963103"