Jump to content

User talk:JBW/Archive 81

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84

Lost identity?

Hi, JBW. You helped me out back in 2017 after I changed identity. I seem to have done so again inadvertently and would welcome your advice. I was having difficulty with logging in as Sweetpool50 - I thought only on Wikimedia - but now can't get back to my old WP editing watchlist. Is there a way of putting right what I did wrong and relaunching that avatar or is what I've done irreperable? Thanks, Crescent50 (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Crescent50: Obviously I don't know what sort of difficulty with logging in you are having, but if it is due to a lost or mangled password it's possible to get a password reset via email. To see how to do it read Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#How do I recover a password I have forgotten? If it's some other kind of logging-in problem then you are welcome to give me further details on the off chance that I may be able to help, but the odds are that I won't because I don't have much knowledge of the technical side of Wikipedia, so you would stand a better chance of getting help by asking at Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). JBW (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, JBW. I thought I'd lost my 'identity' but, as you suggested, it turned out that all I needed to do was create a new password. I've logged out as User:Crescent50 how; I hope that's sufficient and that I won't get accused of some electronic crime! Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

unreasonable deletion of the article

Why did you remove the article about Joseph Moshe, a microbiologist ? Seregadushka (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it was total fantasy, with no support in any reliable source. JBW (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #59591

thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Abbey Sozan

This appears in the French Wikipedia as fr:Abbaye de Sozan; and the supposed Prince-Abbot makes an appearance in our article in pectore. There are also some supposed Sozan images in the Commons. Alas, my French is le merde. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


Hi, Mike. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. Here are a few comments, which you may or may not find interesting. Also pinging Ghirlandajo in case you are interested.
I first became aware of the article as a result of Ghirlandajo nominating it for speedy deletion as a hoax. I checked very carefully, and confirmed that it was. After reading your message, Mike, I looked at the French article, and was hit in the face by a number of templates expressing numerous doubts about the article, including a suggestion that it was an "elaborate hoax". The editing history also shows that the article has in the past been nominated for speedy deletion. I then put a very considerable amount of work into checking the article and its references, and searching for information about its content. I also checked the mention of the subject in the article in pectore, which you mentioned.
The conclusion I reached was that this is one of the most elaborate hoaxes I have seen for years. The French Wikipedia article was originally a translation of the English one, but since then it has been expanded with extensive material, most of which is cited to sources which certainly don't exist, sources which may or may not exist but are unverifiable, and sources which do exist but don't say anything whatsoever about this supposed abbey, or simply not sourced at all. Some of them are not about the abbey but about other matters which the article seeks to link to the supposed abbey, while some don't seem to be connected to the subject at all. Mentions of the abbey that I have found on searching are sources in most cases certainly derived from Wikipedia, and in the other cases probably derived from Wikipedia. Information about the place Sozan, not about its abbey, is nonexistent. It is inconceivable that I wouldn't have found any mention of the place if it existed. (Hits for "Sozan" were about totally unrelated subjects, such as a Japanese artist.) The mention in in pectore, already tagged for a source, is not supported by any source anywhere that I can find, which would be highly improbable if true. (I had no difficulty in finding sources for similar statements in the article but not relating to Sozan.) I could go on, but by now I'm sure you get the point...
When I was young I had a very fluent command of French, and could have very easily raised these concerns on French Wikipedia. Now, although my ability to read French is still pretty good, almost half a century of being totally out of practice has resulted in my ability to express myself in French very seriously deteriorated. As I said, the French article is tagged as a likely hoax, and perhaps French Wikipedia editors will take the matter up.
The status of the mention of "Sozan" in the article in pectore isn't immediately clear. It doesn't actually mention the abbey, merely a person with "Sozan" in his name. Virtually no context is given, but the rest of the name appears to be French. However, I'll look at it again, including checking the editing history of that information being in the article, and also at the Commons material. JBW (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Orangemike: When I wrote the message above, I hadn't checked the editing history of in pectore, and didn't know it was you who tagged the mention there as unsourced. I have now checked the history, and found that it was originally posted by an IP editor who sourced it to the French Wikipedia article. Obviously that's no use, so I have removed it, and restored sourced content removed in the same IP edit. Probably the IP editor was acting in good faith, believing what the French article said. JBW (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible block evasion on Elsie Shrigley

Hi, back in April you blocked an IP [1] on the Elsie Shrigley article for block evasion. I do not know who the master is, or what accounts they have had but they appear to be using other IPs on the article and now there is an account [2] that has reverted the same material that is 2 months old (I looked up the 3 IPS and they all trace to Pennsylvania, so I assume they are the same user). The Elsie Shrigley is a low-traffic article I find it hard to believe all this interest in removing the exact same material are different users. In regard to DoesWhateverASpiderCant I looked at the account and it seems to be making the same sort of edits as the IP you blocked (100.11.62.135), I believe there is a case for behavioural evidence that the account is the IP. I would say that 100.11.62.135 IP and the others are all DoesWhateverASpiderCant. You may know more about this users editing history than me. I do not know what other account/s they have had, but this looks like block evasion to me, can you take a look? Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Thanks for pointing this out. I actually had to do quite a lot of searching and checking of editing history before I found enough coincidences and similarities to be sure this was the same person, but I got there eventually. Unfortunately it looks as though they have put some effort into avoiding some of the really obvious kinds of editing which gave them away in the past. JBW (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi thanks for your help. I suspect that user might be back in a few months they seem to use quite a few IPs as well, I will watch the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Very interesting I thought that fly was real for a moment! Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Amitmondal07

Hi James. Another one found via Commons. Looks like a deliberate vanity page with no contributions to the project. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Acabashi. Thanks. I've deleted the page, which was a recreation of a previously deleted page, and posted a level 3 warning to the editor. JBW (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy Twelfth Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Page deletion

Hello JBW It looks like I created an article in error, which you rightly deleted. My apologies for wasting your time. I created a subpage on my user page and something went wrong. I am having a bad day.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin: Don't worry about it at all. It was obviously just a slip, creating a page under the wrong title, which is easy to do; I've done it myself. JBW (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m a vandal (or not?)

Hi JBW, not sure where to reply to your ping so acknowledging it (and the report here). Nice way to land from holidays, héhé. Will address this in due course, please bare with me, seems there’s a lot going on at that page. Cheers! PierreLsn (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@PierreLsn: Since the message where I pinged you has gone, this is probably the best place to reply. The only reason I pinged you was as a courtesy, so that you would know about the "vandalism" report about you. I haven't looked again at either your editing or the other editor's since I made that post, so I have no idea whether there are continuing problems. If not, then that can be an end to it, but please do feel welcome to post here again if there still are problems and you think I can be of any help. JBW (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @JBW, Right, thanks for the courtesty. I'm looking into the situation now too for the first time in 10 days and seems it has been brought to No original research noticeboard by other users having conflicts too. I'm going to reply there. Will also be asking about needing to address a WP:COI - or more specifically a WP:SPI. It would be great if you have a look at that Noticeboard if ever you have time, help might be warranted. Best, PierreLsn (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Meaningless

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Boyer_%28chemist%29&type=revision&diff=1093613214&oldid=1091982120

I have not really looked at that article in years, and did not really now. But those meaningless things you removed, where VERY poorly formatted references to the books listed in further reading section. Jeepday (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Recreation

Ok, it appears an article you speedied and 2 NPP reviewers draftified is creating an issue, and may require an admin action. I will leave this in your capable hands. Atsme 💬 📧 13:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: Thanks for letting me know. The page has now been created six times, three of which were still in existence when I checked after reading your message. I've blocked the account and deleted all but one copy of the page. I might have deleted that too, but decided to give it the benefit of the doubt; there's perhaps a 1 in 1,000 chance that someone will clean it up and make it suitable to become an article. JBW (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you so much. I will Get to know this pace better, and c hange what needs to be changed:) Politidistrikt (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Virtua Fighter 5 the final?

There are IPs stating that Virtua Fighter 5 in the final title in the series, despite the fact that not only did an update for the game come out last year (Ultimate Showdown), but the developer(s) haven't said anything about that, the IPs are just basing that on their opinion alone, which of course is not what wiki is about. There are dozens of franchises that haven't been updated in years and no one is stating that's the final one in that series since we can't make that statement for the company. So, I request that the page be locked for a while.108.208.137.161

Thanks for working to prevent such unsourced speculation staying in the article. I've semi-protected the article for 3 weeks. Please feel welcome to contact me again if the problem continues after that. JBW (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Categories

Hello, JBW,

Typically, categories need to be emptied before they are deleted. Otherwise, all of the pages in the deleted category have red link categories on them which, according to WP:REDNO need to be removed. This is why categories are exempt from CSD G5 criteria which applies to other namespaces. The editor who created the categories and then tagged them for deletion CSD G7 should have removed the pages in the category before tagging them for deletion. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes. Of course I knew that somewhere in the back of my mind, but didn't think of it. Thanks for pointing it out to me. JBW (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: I started emptying the categories, but then decided it should be up to the editor who added the categories to do that, so instead I resorted to undeleting and declining speedy deletion. The one category that I had emptied before that change of approach I have left deleted; if you wish to undelete it because it doesn't qualify under the CSD that I used, then feel free, but I'm more inclined to IAR and leave it as it is. JBW (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Global unblock

Message:: Please help me:: Dear JBW, First time - the request was not granted - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2022-w09#Global_lock_for_E.Imanoff ,

The second request too - was not granted https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2022-w14#Global_lock_for_E.Imanoff ,

Third time - It is clear that to file a complaint again 6 days after the second appeal is to disregard the steward's decision, which is similar to vandalism. Serious action should be taken against the Turkish user (nicknamed Kadı) who created this unpleasant situation, perhaps his intention was to block me in advance, so he repeatedly sent block requests without any serious reason. It is like accepting a request by negotiating with someone. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2022-w15#Global_lock_for_E.Imanoff

In a few words, explain what wiki policy was violated:: Incorrect evaluation of sockpoppets and misunderstanding, which is similar to vandalism.

What users are you complaining about? Provide their wiki usernames:: User:Kadı, I want to complain about User:Kadı, please eliminate the injustice and unblock my block

Add any other information that you believe to be relevant for the understanding of this case.: Please read the discussion among the Azerbaijani admins, https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:%C4%B0dar%C9%99%C3%A7i_m%C3%BCzakir%C9%99si#Elshad_Iman_(El%C5%9Fad_%C4%B0man)-%C4%B1n_yanl%C4%B1%C5%9F_olaraq_bloklanmas%C4%B1 because I have admitted my mistake and I ask you to allow me to make my edits and I promise that this will not happen again. I can't edit in English, unfortunately, because I'm blocked.

Please let me use the account E.Imanoff, because I do my editing in Azerbaijani languages articles.

At the moment, I am blocked globally for no good reason. Please take action to get out of the global block.--37.26.39.62 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

My reputation, which I built for several years, was undermined in one day, which is very bad for me. Please help me open my block or post this discussion on the stewards page so that the wiki community and the stewards can accept my apology and give me another chance as a confessed user. Best regards: Elshad Iman --37.26.39.62 (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been looking into the history of your accounts, with a view to deciding what will be the best way forward. Unfortunately, it's taking me a very long time, because there's a very extensive history. I also have very little experience of dealing with global locks and the stewards' noticeboard, and so I'm not sure what the right way to deal with it is. For both those reasons it's likely to take some time before I take any action, but that doesn't mean that I'm ignoring your request. If I don't post here again within 48 hours then please remind me. I realise that having to wait is likely to be frustrating, but it should be a short time in proportion to how long you have already had to wait. JBW (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
My only hope is you, I'm sorry to bother you, but as you said, I'll write to you to remind you. 37.26.39.62 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear JBW, I did not use the account indicated here, it seems to me that this is slander. Each account has its own story, and if you pay attention to this story, you will see that I am accused in vain. Here you should not guess and associate each user with my name. The first account I used was Elshadiman, see his story. The following account is the one I created because I don't use another one anymore, so I did this to change the account name. You can see history in it.

I mean, accounts that are not associated with my name do not belong to me. If we examine the activity history of usernames whose names belong to me, it will be clear that I did not abuse my accounts with the name Elshad Iman, that is, the activity of one account in the history does not coincide with the activity of another account, these are different dates. That is, the activity of one stopped and then another started.

That is, I use Wikipedia not only at home, but also at work, and even at the educational institution where I study. For example, wan ip from an ISP could be used by other users, not just me. I mean Wikipedia editors use a public IP address coming from one ISP at a time. If they investigate what I said, the truth will be revealed. From the history of my last account, it is clear that I was an active patrol of Wikipedia, and, of course, I want to return to my active work. Please HELP --37.26.39.62 (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, my apologies for the fact that I didn't respond earlier. There were several reasons for that.
As far as I am concerned, I am usually more willing than most administrators to consider unblocking editors if it seems that whatever problems led to the block will not happen again, but I can't unilaterally set aside the opinions of everyone else. I put some time into trying to sort out the history of your accounts, but it was complex and confusing, and much of it was in languages which I don't understand. However, it does seem to me that part of the path which led you to being globally locked was a matter of misunderstandings. If i can sort out clearly enough what happened to be able to see the essential points, without losing them in an ocean of irrelevant detail, I will consider making a case for you. It may actually be easier to initially raise the matter on English Wikipedia, rather than going directly to the stewards, because my very limited experience of stewards' handling of global locks suggests that they may be more willing to consider unlocking if at least one individual project has decided to lift restrictions. Perhaps you can help by doing the following.
  • List all of the accounts you have used.
  • Explain briefly how you came to be blocked and locked. Don't give every detaio, and don't dwell on criticising other editors (no matter how much they may deserve criticism) but concentrate on giving enough of an outline so that someone else reading what you say will get the overall picture.
  • If you think any of the cause of the blocks and lock has been due to errors on your part, please say what those errors were, and what you hope to do differently in future. JBW (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    I was globally blocked after this edit, I don't understand the reasons given for the block. These users may have used vpn, so they collided with my ip address, which I think is worth investigating. Mr JBW, I think the problem stems from an IP collision. Now I don't know if Meta will confirm it, but it's true. However, I would absolutely beg for an administrator to review my edit and contribution history again. I understand that the technical anti-sock puppetry systems in place are solid and reliable, however I can wholeheartedly put my hands up and say that I have no relation to the accused user in any shape or form. At Ruviki, I applied to the admin page for an encyclopedic article by a non-profit organization at this link. Then I was blocked because I was the puppet account of a globally blocked user. I recently received a warning about unblocking my account - after reading the application here, I realized that Ruviki had blocked me because I was still blocked on Enviki, and this discussion said that a user's account could be opened on Ruviki if Enviki considered the user's block unjustified. I am one of the most active users in Ruviki and you will see it clearly if you look at the history of my Elshad Iman account. Please unblock, I'm not Canvassing with my suckpuppet Elshad Iman and E.Imanoff so it wouldn't be right to keep me on the block for long. I ask you to restore my user rights to my E.Imanoff account. I think something went wrong with my block. I openly demanded that the side profile be banned (later it was identified as socks?) *As I mentioned above, the locking of my account is supposed to be based on the existence of other accounts, but it is necessary to believe that there is a mistake. I am an experienced and helpful user; The admins have given me certain privileges for my contributions in the Azerbaijani language section. Please reconsider the bloc decision. First of all, according to the rules, the indefinite blocking of a user working on Wikipedia should take place only after discussions. But without discussion, I was blocked indefinitely. *I think the problem stems from an IP collision. If I have made any mistakes in my activities, I promise that I will not make any more mistakes. *Since Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) is currently blocked, please let me use the account E.Imanoff, because I do my editing in Azerbaijani languages articles with this profile and I don't need an alternative profile. I would also like to contribute to the English Wikipedia. My goal is to participate in discussions about candidate pages for deletion and to prepare articles by encyclopedic personalities. Please review user activities again and make the right decision. I think if I had the opportunity to stay in Enviki I, in turn, would strictly follow the rules. Thanks in advance! I hope I'm able to be spared a chance in this situation. 89.219.179.69 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    Dear JBW, all my recent activity is reflected here. Also, looking at the history, it seems that after discussing Elshad Iman's erroneous block in the thread, the Azerbaijani admins open my block in the Azerbaijani section and allow my edits, even my patrol status is restored again. The request given here is due to the fact that I was globally blocked, but without any reason, and the steward denies the request. The request is made again and the steward rejects the request again, the third time the request was made before 6 days had passed, I already had doubts because there was no good reason to apply again before 6 days had passed, I would say that this request is similar to a preliminary arrangement. 89.219.179.69 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
    Dear colleague JBW, I hope you can help me. I only hope for you. Cheers 89.219.178.163 (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Believe me, I am literally crawling to solve this issue. There is also a discussion here after my e-mail application. Given the last chance i would follow strict rules. Once again, please help me with this problem that has arisen. Best regards: Elshad Iman 89.219.178.163 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    Dear JBW, I know I bother you by writing so often, but I need your support in this discussion. 89.219.178.163 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Repeated edit warring over sourced political content

Hi JBW! Was wondering if you could provide help or guidance over the issues currently going on at New Zealand National Party, one user has been repeatedly reversing sourced content. We have tried to talk it out, but it generally always comes back to their own personal opinions without offering any substantial counter claims, or refusal to reply, before making reverts again. I haven’t really used Wiki frequently in years, but know most of the terms and rules, and based on my gathering, the user seems to be violating rules but since the New Zealand wiki pages tend to be a ghost town when it comes to moderation, not quite sure who to turn to for an unbiased opinion.

I’m happy to let this go if it can be discussed properly, but the user seems more determined on claiming I’m wrong without stating why. If you could even guide me into the right places to seek assistance on these issues, it would be a huge help. Thanks SjShane (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@HTGS and SjShane: Unfortunately just now I don't have time to look into this properly, but I'll try to look at it when I do have time. From a very quick glance, however, it seems that you are both acting in good faith, but it is also clear that both of you have been edit-warring, and you would be well advised to avoid continuing on that line, as doing so may lead to being blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I was under the impression sourced content was able to stay if there were no counters by the other user engaging in edit-warring, however it has been a long time since I used Wiki properly so rules have likely changed, will stop reversing myself until a decision is reached, even if it leaves the article factually incorrect, but feel an agreement may be unlikely between myself and this user given what has transpired so far. Thanks again. SjShane (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Why?

[3] I'm not looking forward for an edit war so I'll leave it here. Why restore an obviously false report made by a vandal? Not to mention you specified his edits are made in "good faith" when this is a WP:DUCK of BKFIP. GTNO6 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, it seems like you restored the report over a discussion on another report. GTNO6 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@GTNO6:
  1. Removing the report, with several editors' comments about it, put the accompanying report in a misleading light. Since they were both part of the same incident, selectively removing part of it made it difficult to see the whole picture.
  2. For an editor to remove other people's comments from a discussion and then comment themselves is something which should be avoided under almost all circumstances.
  3. I made several attempts to post a comment, repeatedly thwarted by edit conflicts. When eventually I succeeded in posting, I found someone had removed part of the discussion to which I was replying, making my comments xome out of context. When I tried to restore the removed content, I suffered further edit conflicts. In order to be able at last to get it done, after a huge waste of time, I eventually just quickly posted it where it looked as though it fitted. If in the circumstances the place where I posted it wasn't ideal then that is unfortunate, but the best available under the circumstances.
  4. There were several things wrong with the editing of the editor you are concerned about, but I was dealing with a report on vandalism, which it wasn't, as the editor showed every indication of sincerely believing that what they were doing was beneficial. Whether you, I, or anyone else agrees that it was beneficial or not is irrelevant. Concerns about matters other than vandalism, including edit-warring, sockpuppetry, incivility, and anything else, belong in other places, not on the noticeboard for requesting administrator action on vandalism. JBW (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I honestly do not understand what you mean by your last sentence. Isn't repeated unexplained removal of content with misleading edit summaries that lack any good faith considered vandalism? Isn't mass-reverting (not just edit warring) on multiple articles just for the sake of it considered vandalism? And even if not, WP:AIV is generally a better place to report IP's than WP:ANI.
Also, whether this is relevant or not, the IP has been reported for sockpuppetry, where the sockmaster is a community banned long-term abuser. GTNO6 (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Bias Enforcement

Hello,

I have removed your pejoratives from my talk page because the statement appears to be calculated to obscure what can be interpreted as bias enforcement on a page.

In this case, this is a user trying to integrate cited, sourced content involving a scandal on a BLP page that has a documented conflict of interest with the Wikipedia editor crowd.

Please refrain from this sort of approach in the future, and if you disagree with content you can discuss it civilly. At that point you could provide clarification on what would be problematic with the sources you disagree with so that accurate and appropriate content can be included, instead of the "good ole boy" responses and blocks clearly documented on that talk page.

To be clear, under no circumstance imaginable will the approach demonstrated there be successful. It is not only unethical, but it undermines (highlights) credibility issue with Wikipedia in general.

If you can do better, please do. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@71.65.65.144: You're making things up. JBW left no pejorative in his message. And this seems to be a made up user warning message and I honestly have no idea what you could mean by "bias enforcement" - perhaps you got inspired from WP:Civil POV pushing? Anyways it doesn't really matter anymore as this IP is blocked. GTNO6 (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina

@JBW: Hi, may you undelete this article? The reason why it should be undeleted is because it is definitely a needed article, especially with all the work being done on the South American Miocene wiki, according to Augustios Paleo. 142.188.125.113 (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing at all to prevent an editor in good standing from creating an article on the subject, but I don't see any good reason on this occasion for restoring the article created by a long-term sockpuppeteer. Having looked at your other editing, I also ask you to be civil to other editors, no matter how much you disagree with them. JBW (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
But that's what @Augustios Paleo said on the WP:Paleo Discord server. But should it be recreated by anyone else that isn't the sockpuppeteer? 142.188.125.113 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  1. What is "what Augustios Paleo said on the WP:Paleo Discord server"? That the deleted article "should be undeleted ... because it is definitely a needed article"? That there's nothing at all to prevent an editor in good standing from creating an article on the subject?
  2. Sorry, I was taking it for granted that "an editor in good standing" excluded anyone evading blocks or bans, but perhaps I should have explicitly said so. I also can't at the moment think of anything else that would make it unacceptable, so probably anyone not blocked or banned could create an article, or at least a draft article to be submitted for review. JBW (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    Augustios Paleo said that it is definitely a needed article, especially with all the work being done on the South American Miocene wiki, are you confused by anything? 142.188.125.113 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    @JBW How are you confused with the first thing I've said? 142.188.125.113 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.331dot (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Mankirt Aulakh (Musician)

U have deleted this page, Did i write something wrong. Mankirat Aulakh was deleted by me because it has no reliable sources, was unorganised & the title was misspelled (with extra ‘a’).💯 But Mankirt Aulakh (Musician) is different. It has all required citations & links of the artist. I request u to undo the deletion of Mankirt Aulakh (Musician) article. Daredevil5911 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The article Mankirt Aulakh was deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion. Since then it has been repeatedly re-created. In an attempt to put a stop to such repeated re-creations, the title was protected. You then re-created it under the title Mankirt Aulakh (Musician). Whether you did so for the purpose of evading the protection I can't say, but whatever your intention, it was re-creation of a page deleted at a deletion discussion, and it was promotional in character. For both those reasons it was deleted. It is irrelevant to that deletion that you also created another copy of the article under yet another title, and, when it was taken to a deletion discussion, requested deletion. JBW (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
‘Mankirat Aulakh’ had an extra ‘a’ (second a) so i moved to Mankirt Aulakh (Musician) for updating the spelling.💯 &
- Mankirt Aulakh is a popular singer from Punjab,India. (like: Sidhu Moose Wala, Diljit Dosanjh, Karan Aujla,etc). All required souces for article were also provided. Please undo the deletion. Daredevil5911 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I have spend quite a bit of time to work on this article. Please clarify specifically the problematic areas of the article and remove the tag for it to be deleted Daredevil5911 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the essential points of my post above, so I'll try to clarify them. The article Mankirt Aulakh was deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion. You then re-created it. When a page which has been deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion is re-created, Wikipedia policy is that it can be deleted immediately. The fact that when you re-created the article you renamed it to "Mankirt Aulakh (Musician)" makes no difference. The fact that you also created a similar article under yet another title ("Mankirat Aulakh") and then asked for it to be deleted is completely irrelevant. The deletion of the version you created under the title "Mankirt Aulakh (Musician)" had nothing whatever to do with the fact that you created the version "Mankirat Aulakh" and then asked for it to be deleted. As for your statement that you "have spend quite a bit of time", you may or may not find it instructive to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Begging for mercy. Rightly or wrongly, no Wikipedia policy or guideline supports the view that whether a page should be kept is in any way influenced by how much effort has been put into it. JBW (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Dear JBW,
the article Mankirt Aulakh was different.
I want to reuse the title for something different, so i used Mankirt Aulakh (Musician) as a title. Daredevil5911 (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Mankirt Aulakh (musician) is not a re-creation of Mankirt Aulakh. Daredevil5911 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "something different", but what you posted was not substantially different from previous versions. The article has been created under the title "Mankirt Aulakh" six times, and following protection of that title to prevent it from being created again, at least twice under other titles. Every one of those eight times it was about the same person, and in almost all cases said substantially similar things about him, albeit not in identical words. It has been deleted every time it has been created, by seven different administrators. Contrary to what you say, the copies of the article that you created were substantially the same in content as earlier versions. Consensus at a deletion discussion was that it was not suitable as a Wikipedia article. A second deletion discussion would virtually certainly have come to the same conclusion had you not requested deletion, thus leading to premature closing of the discussion, and then created it again under another title. (It doesn't matter what your intention was in doing that, the effect was to bypass completion of the discussion.) It would be possible to take it to a third deletion discussion, this time let the discussion run its full course, and conclude with deleting the article for a ninth time, but that would achieve nothing whatever except wasting the time of everyone concerned, just as your repeatedly posting here is a waste of your time and mine. It will be much more constructive for you to accept that, however keen you are to get an article about this person, it isn't going to happen, and move on to putting your time and effort into something which will last.
One more thing. Following your latest post here, I searched more thoroughly for information about Mankirt Aulakh, and I found that most, if not all, of the page you created was copied from another web site, with minor changes in wording, but clearly recognisable as essentially the same. That is certainly a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, and almost certainly a violation of copyright law. There is therefore no question whatever of restoring the deleted page. JBW (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I will be working on the neutralisation & improvement of the article. Or i can make a Draft article, if there is a need. I was provide chart history from UK Asian Music Charts. But page got deleted before i could update it. Kindly restore the article Mankirt Aulakh. Daredevil5911 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
PS- Uk asian music charts (Official Charts Company) Daredevil5911 (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
What part of "That is certainly a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, and almost certainly a violation of copyright law. There is therefore no question whatever of restoring the deleted page" is difficult to understand? If you wish to make a draft article on the subject you may do so, but you can't have copyright infringing text restored. JBW (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Kino Indonesia

I want to recreate the article about Kino Indonesia. It's my pleasure for you to appreciate. Ridwan97 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ridwan97: That's fine. The article was repeatedly created in 2016, by a succession of single purpose accounts, as pure marketing text, in fact blatant spam, but I'm confident you can do better than that. JBW (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@JBW thanks for your appreciation. I'll do my best. Ridwan97 (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for a copy of my deleted user page sent to me.

Hi, I saw the notice that my user page got deleted. I replied to you on my talk page, but it looks like you have not seen it. Anyways, Is it possible that I can get a copy of my user page sent to me that had the content before it got deleted? I would very much appreciate it, if you could do that. CatX (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Some Chicken Kiev for you!

Bertlookslikebowler (talk) has given you a juicy Chicken Kiev! Chicken Kievs are a signature dish of Russian and Ukrainian cuisine, made of chicken fillet pounded and rolled around cold butter, then coated with eggs and bread crumbs, and either fried or baked. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.


Spread the goodness of Chicken Kiev by adding {{subst:Chicken Kiev}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give a Chicken Kiev to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Thanks for having my back! Hope you love this :) Bertlookslikebowler (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Anatoly Levin-Utkin

Please can you clarify if you found CPJ and RFERL to give the subject only "passing mention" or if you think those sources aren't enough. In my opinion, those sources give the subject very significant coverage, and are enough to establish notability, but I will add a few more. IntrepidContributor (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor: All of the references you have cited give far more than pasing mention of him. However, some of them, and from a brief check I think perhaps all of them, give substantially about his death. JBW (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I could rename the article to Assassination of Anatoly Levin-Utkin but I think he is notable on his own because of his work. Anyway, thank you for looking into it. IntrepidContributor (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@IntrepidContributor: My guess is that he probably is, but the references you had cited when I reviewed the draft weren't enough to show that he was. A quick look at the other references you have added since then gives the impression that they are basically more of the same, but I haven't read them thoroughly, nor have I searched for more information about him. Unfortunately, assessing whether sources are likely to be accepted as enough to establish notability is often difficult for new editors: it's something that you pick up from experience over time, rather than something that can be clearly defined. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. JBW (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you I will edit some articles. Please can you decide about this draft once you have read the references. I think the RFERL investigation is enough to establish notability as it is was references by others. IntrepidContributor (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi James, did you read the RFERL article? I am surprised you overlooked this significant body of work by Soshnikov and Schreck. Here is a podcast with them describing their work. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The Legend (2022 film)

Hello @JBW: Theoder2055 here. Is it possible to protect this film’s page? I have already requested for protection, but even though is it possible? I feel it should not be possible for the page to have disruptive edits being made continuously, so that’s why I am suggesting it despite already requestion for the protection of that ? Is it possible to contact other editors like @ToBeFree:, @Ohnoitsjamie: for these problems? Theoder2055 (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Theoder2055: I had wondered whether protecting the article would be a good idea, and now, prompted by your message, I've done a more thorough checking of the article's editing history, and decided it is. I've semiprotected it for a month, but if that turns out not to be enough then please feel welcome to contact me again. JBW (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @JBW: Have a nice day. Cheers! Theoder2055 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I suppose thankyou

Thanks, I will now determine to prove atleast 5 notable sources cited before returning. However i do believe that Svenland is extremely serious is aims of global recognition and future nation hood and we strive onwards. PS Wikipedia does has a good couple of notable Micronational Articles about and we hope to join them at some stage;)

I shall contact you when i can give these reasonable number of sources in order to return my page 

Irelandicehockey (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

UTRS 61311

+1 Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Natural Solar

Greetings. I tried to create the page Natural Solar because it meets WP:SIGCOV and it is a notable energy company of Australia. However, I think I made it sound promotional so I will be very grateful if you are kind enough to point me which parts were promotional and perhaps move it to my sandbox for improvements. I do note that there was a previous attempt to create it by a COI editor but I want to assure you that I have no conflict of interest with it. Thank you. Gartineial (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you so much for blocking the transphobic vandal I've been dealing with. Liliana (UwU) 08:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism from the same IP range you partially blocked

I rollbacked a vandal edit and noticed that the vandal's IP range had already been blocked by you, but only from editing a particular article. Not sure if it would be helpful to block the range entirely, as I am unsure how wide encompassing that would be, although these kind of IP addresses are typically of proxies and VPNs. Yue🌙 20:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Yue: It is out of the question to totally block such a very large IP range: the collateral damage would be enormous, but I have looked at the editing history to see whether there might be a case for a block on a smaller range. The conclusion I came to was that this edit seems to have been, so far, a one-off. I didn't see any other editing which appeared to be connected to it, and there has never been any other editing at all from the /64 range covering that IP address. Consequently I don't think there's any case for a block at present, but obviously that conclusion can be revised if you see further related editing. JBW (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting un-create protection of MovieStarPlanet

Title was created-protected back in 2013 by you, now that a suitable draft exists for the topic it would be great if you could undo that so I can accept said draft and move it to mainspace. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat:  Done. From 2012 to 2021 there were at least 8 creations of this page, either as an article or as a draft, and every one of them was grossly unsuitable to be a Wikipedia article. It is good to see that at last someone has taken the trouble to write what looks, at least at a quick glance, to be a reasonable article on the subject, so I'm only too happy to lift the protection. JBW (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat: However, I see that Jovanmilic97 beat you to accepting the draft, three minutes after I removed the protection. JBW (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh my God! I had no idea this was happening at the time I was accepting it (because it never showed up as protected). And as you can see, I did tons of additional work into the whole thing, such as new sourcing, massive cleanup, rearrangement and all! Cheers, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Hi @JBW:, could you block this IP address 2409:4072:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. This IP address is making edits which are disruptive and this user 2409:4072:6C80:7CDE:7034:8EFC:D105:1667 has made comments like this which is from the same group of this IP address. Right now this IP address is partially block. Is it possible to block him from editing? Theoder2055 (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Theoder2055: I've blocked the smaller range 2409:4072:6C80:7CDE:0:0:0:0/64 for a while. Checking the recent editing history I didn't see any editing from any other part of the /32 range which seems related, and there is quite a lot of unrelated editing which looks OK as far as I can tell, so I don't think there's any case for a total block on the whole range. However, please do let me know if you now see any editing which looks like the same person moving to another IP address, and I'll reconsider the situation. JBW (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @JBW: if you check the edit history of the article Viruman, you may see many non constructive edits made and incorrect information introduced by IP users 2409:4072:6C0A:9234:836B:F6A1:C557:FCEF, 2409:4072:6C0A:9234:C2B7:F40A:C87E:5345 and 2409:4072:6C0A:9234:836B:F6A1:C557:FCEF. Aren’t they same users? One of the users got warned by me, and other users like Hey man im josh. Only thing is that they are introducing incorrect information about the satellite rights and the digital rights in that page. I suppose they are the same users. Is that so? Theoder2055 (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Theoder2055: Yes, you seem to be right. I've added that article to the partial block. Looking for relevant editing just knowing the IP range, and not knowing what articles to look at, was a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack, but once you pointed out the particular article it was obvious. As you may have seen, I recently blocked the even bigger IP range 2409:4000::/25 from the article Raghav Juyal, which I didn't remember when I read your original message above. Also, four different administrators (Yamaguchi先生, Daniel Case, Zzuuzz, and Ohnoitsjamie) have been involved in placing partial blocks on 2409:4089::/34. There may be yet more blocks on other related subranges, or individual IP addresses, for all I know. Evidently there is a considerable problem from editing via IP addresses in this area, and partially blocking particular subranges from particular pages and namespaces is rather like a game of Whack-a-mole, but I still find it difficult to contemplate a total block on the whole /32 range. I don't know whether any of the administrators I have mentioned may have any thoughts to offer. (Incidentally, I think this is very likely to be the first time I have ever imposed a block on such a huge IPv6 range as /25.) JBW (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that range, sigh. Regarding the /34, I am on the border of putting down a long anonblock, it won't take at all much to tip me over the edge. It won't be a full solution, because as you suggest there's actually a /22 and it's not the only one, but I think that one (/34) might be a bit worth it (there's also some nasty vandal accounts coming from there). I see no one has done a /32 block of 2409:4072, and the reason for that is that it's just super super busy. And you lot can't even see the number of accounts being created, which is far from zero. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"DESTROY" vandal found a couple of new ranges

78.164.48.0/22 & 78.175.48.0/21   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sixteenth anniversary on Wikipedia!


Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear JBW/Archive 81,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

@JBW: This user 116.68.86.114 is continuously making disruptive edits in pages like Viruman, Cobra (2022 film) and Srinidhi Shetty despite being warned by another user so many times. Is it possible to block him? Theoder2055 (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Theoder2055: By the time I saw your message it was already over 24 hours since there had been any editing from that IP address, and many administrators would just dismiss your request out of hand for that reason, saying that the disruptive IP editing is not current. However, from the editing history it is clear that one person has been doing all the editing from this IP address for many months, and I don't see any reason to treat them differently from a logged-in editor doing the same editing, so I am willing to consider a block. It isn't immediately obvious to me what is disruptive about the editing, though, so can you give me a short indication of what the problems are?JBW (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Draftify after speedy deletion declined

Hello JBW,

I saw that you declined a speedy deletion tag on Chagum. Would it be considered inappropriate in any way if I were to draftify an article after a speedy deletion was declined by an admin? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Hey man im josh Not inappropriate at all. In fact I considered doing that myself, but decided to leave it and see whether anyone else thought it a good idea. Go ahead. JBW (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Great, thank you! Didn't want to step on any toes =) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. I wish i knew this earlier before some of my vital articles were Speedy Deleted. Mikkyly (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Request Block

If the user 2409:4072:6185:584C:0:0:24B3:90A0 continues to make disruptive edits or is making disruptive edits already then could you block him from editing? Theoder2055 (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Theoder2055: I've blocked the IP range 2409:4072:6185:584C::/64 for 48 hours. JBW (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: Is it also possible to protect the page Thiruchitrambalam because of persistent disruptive editing by various IP users? Theoder2055 (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi JBW, I noticed you deleted a page called Okezue Bell.

I request this page not be deleted for the following reasons: (1.) it is not self promotion. The page was created to highlight an individual that had recently been recognized by Google with a Knowledge Graph for notoriety and high internet presence. I, as an editor, have no affiliation or ties with the writing or any of the content. (2.) The content is factual. All content has been validated directly through notable sources, including several lab websites, article features, and award spotlights from accredited organizations. In these features, the individual of interest is not involved. (3.) This page was targeted despite being markedly similar to pages of other youth innovators with internet presence and high impact, such as Gitanjali Rao's page (which, despite having several issues, has never been removed from the article mainspace or deleted from Wikipedia). This page better follows the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia and only cites validated and directly verifiable information. (4.) This page has been submitted for additional review and should remain on the article mainspace as it follows all Wikipedia guidelines.

Could you explain why this was speedily deleted?

1033307869edits (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@1033307869edits: Yes I can. The article was written in an unambiguously laudatory tone from start to finish. It had every appearance of having been written by someone who holds a high opinion of the person who was the subject of the article, and wishes to convey that impression to readers. To say the same thing more concisely, it was promotional. Almost none of what you have said above is remotely relevant, as it is not about the reason given for deletion. In fact the only aspect of what you have written above which has any connection to the reason for deletion is a few phrases which make it perfectly clear what your purpose in creating the article was. The most direct and straightforward of those is where you said that the article was "created to highlight an individual" (my emphasis). To highlight, to publicise, to eulogise, to promote, choose whatever words you like: that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Another user

@JBW: another user Sathyalingam is continuously adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. He is changing the runtime in the page Cobra (2022 film) without citing a reliable source. Is it possible to block him from editing for a year, otherwise he will continue making disruptive edits. I also suspect whether he is a sockpuppet of User:VeeraVijayapandi. Is it possible to start the sockpuppet investigation of Sathyalingam? Theoder2055 (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: Is it possible to protect the page Cobra (2022 film) as persistent disruptive editing is being made again? Theoder2055 (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Flexiv Robotics

Hi JBW,

I just found out that my Wiki page on Flexiv has been deleted! What can i do to get it back and edit out the parts that justified a speedy deletion?

I thought i did a great job on the page, but i guess i still have a lot to learn. I am worried that it was deleted because it was not notable enough, but the company developed a whole new type of robot that will have massive societal implications in the future. I mean they were the first to make a robot that uses AI and force sensing to learn how to complete tasks.

I thought it was groundbreaking when i found out about it, but i work in the manufacturing industry so i guess it matters more to me. Having 90% of your workers potentially replaced by a robot opens your eyes to how the technology can be used in the future.

Anyway, let me know if i can get the page back to fix it. If i cant get it back, please let me know why it was deleted so i can make a new page with the necessary improvements.


Kind regards,

Spidersinthecupboard Spidersinthecupboard (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sock

User:NavjotSR and User:ArvindPalaskar both are sock. Please investigate in SPI. 2409:4073:4D11:8A26:3CDE:83B3:8A38:284F (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: Please start SPI. 2409:4073:4E01:CFF2:0:0:EF08:E314 (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What's the evidence? It isn't immediately obvious.JBW (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) likely relevant conversation: User talk:C.Fred#Sockpuppet AddWittyNameHere 12:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Question

Are we not allowed to create pages based upon ourselves and others as long as it's not biased or a sell point? Could you please explain why and if I want to do such page how do I go about doing it please fine gentleman sir? Thanks😁 Alrose1977 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


@Alrose1977: Creating an article about yourself or someone you know is not absolutely forbidden, but it is very strongly discouraged. However, the reason for deletion of the pages you created was not that they were about yourself, but that they were promotional in tone: they clearly gave the impression of having been written with the intention of giving readers a favourable impression of you and your achievements, whereas Wikipedia content should be written from a neutral point of view. In fact one of the main reasons for discouraging editors from creating articles on themselves or subjects connected to themselves is that experience over the years shows that it's surprisingly difficult to do so neutrally. Even people who honestly intend to write neutrally can find it difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their own writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an uninvolved observer. That has the result that they often write in ways that look promotional to others, without realising it.


Since you posted a "conflict of interest" tag on your user page, probably you know of guideline on conflict of interest, but if not you should read it. It may also be helpful to look at the guideline on autobiographies. JBW (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks for explaining that to me JBW. I'm new to the platform and still learning and don't want to, by any means, violate the rules of the platform. If I ever decide to have an autobiography written of myself...are there writers on this platform that will do it for me? Is there some type of forum or chat we can go into to find such writers? Thanks again enjoy your weekend!

Best Alrose1977 Alrose1977 (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Another Sockpuppet case

Hello @JBW: I have noticed User:Sathyalingam edits and he is also adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. He mainly edit on Ajith Kumar and Vijay’s films. Ajith Kumar and Vijay are top stars in Tamil cinema and have so many fans in Tamil cinema. This user is also big fan of them. He is also one among the Sockpuppets of User:Valimai, User:Nerkonda Paarvai, User:Thalapathybeast, User:Valimai Ajithkumar, User:VeeraVijayapandi, User:ThalaAjithkumar as these users are also big fans of Ajith Kumar and Vijay and they also change the box office collection without citing a reliable source. You can say that he is introducing incorrect information into articles. But what I noticed that Sathyalingam’s edits is similar to them. If you want you can check his contributions. Theoder2055 (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

One evidence is that in pages like Beast (2022 Indian film), Varisu, Valimai and other Ajith Kumar and Actor Vijay’s films these users make disruptive edits by making unconstructive edits and adding unsourced or poorly sourced content in those pages. They also got warned for that as well. Theoder2055 (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

@JBW:, if in case the user Kaththi_Kathir is making any other disruptive edits by adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia then is it possible to block him? He already got several warnings but is continuing the same. Theoder2055 (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieval of information from deleted page Magnifica_VR

Hello, you have deleted the page Magnifica_VR, I would like to retrieve the information of the page as a draft. Could you also give me pointers on what to improve in order to avoid future deletions.

Thanks in advance, Oryan Oryanmoshe (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September 5. —Cryptic 22:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Question

Remember this? I'm wondering if this indicates a connection? It was created March 7, 2022 which demonstrates how embarrassingly backlogged we are in the NPP queue. Atsme 💬 📧 14:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User talk:Ugla'a/sandbox

Hello, @JBW: I noticed you've deleted my sandbox. The content on my sandbox was for the reality tv articles I edit, or wish to create later. I realize that it was in the User talk space which wasn't appropriate. I would like access to the logs, so I can continue my work on Wikipedia. Thanks. Ugla'a (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ugla'a: Being a naturally trusting person, at first I took your word for it, and restored the page. However, I then did some checking, and it seems both that this page is total fantasy, and also that you have a long history of misusing Wikipedia in this way, so much so that a similar unsuitable page which you made has been repeatedly deleted, and eventually protected to prevent you from re-creating it yet again. No doubt that is why you created it as a talk page: to evade the protection. If any of what I have written here is mistaken, please tell me what the mistakes are, and why; otherwise I shall assume that if I see you doing anything similar again you should be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: I've been editing Wikipedia for 4 years, and made hundreds of useful contributions. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it was entirely fantasy, but it is not. Many of the tables on the page are from old Big Brother seasons that I was making a chart for at the time. This severe accusation is discouraging to my work on this project. I am just asking you for access to the logs, not even to recreate the article. Ugla'a (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
How I came to the conclusion that it was entirely fantasy is by making numerous searches for numerous bits of information in the page, and finding no confirmation anywhere for any of them. For something as prominent, widely publicized, and heavily covered by "fans" as "Big Brother" it would be surprising for even a few of the searches I made to fail to find anything, and for all of them to fail seems close to inconceivable. However, I am perfectly willing to be proved wrong. Give me one or more reliable sources for a few of the bits of information you posted, and I'll reconsider my decision. For example, can you give me a reliable source for Amari Love, Andres Mendoz, Kairo Miller, Madison Rhodes, Serena Tran, Ximena Calderon, and Jaden Santos? I couldn't find any source, reliable or otherwise. JBW (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: As I stated previously, the majority of the work is from old Big Brother seasons. Yes, the list of names you provided is from one of few fantasy projects on the page, which was inappropriate for me to have. I do take full responsibility for that, but you don't seem to be well versed in this subject at all, and this situation is getting blown out of proportion. You can continue to cherrypick different parts of the page endlessly but my simple request is that I just get access to source code, because it's important to my editing. I will not recreate the page. Ugla'a (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ugla'a: First of all, you don't need to use "ping" on the talk page of the editor you are writing to, as messages on one's own talk page are automatically notified.
You don't seem to have noticed that I offered to reconsider if you would "Give me one or more reliable sources for a few of the bits of information you posted". I was totally serious in that offer, as I also was when I wrote "I am perfectly willing to be proved wrong". I was giving you every opportunity I could to prove me wrong. Many, perhaps most, administrators would not have reached out so far to help you; in fact considering that you appear to have taken steps to evade page protection put in place specifically to prevent you from creating such a page it is by no means out of the question that some administrators might have blocked you from editing.
You accused me of "cherrypicking", but I did nothing of the sort. From a very long page I picked a number of samples, and searched for them, and found no reliable sources. That is not cherrypicking. I asked you for "reliable sources for a few of the bits of information". Really, to ask for confirmation that even a small part of the material was genuine does not seem to me excessive.
I will email you the source text of the page as it was when I deleted it. However, you may like to consider whether the tone of your comments was the one most likely to be effective in getting someone to agree to a request to do something for you. JBW (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

❤️🐈

Rudygarza61 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Mladen Bašić

For whatever reason, this article was apparently drive-by tagged for speedy deletion by some now-blocked sockpuppet account, with the rationale "less refrence", which is already suspect (ones who can barely spell aren't likely to have reviewed the criteria for speedy deletion properly), and seems like they probably should have used {{refimprove}}. But, then you deleted it as 'unambiguous advertising'. Unfortunately, it wasn't so, which can be verified by e.g. looking up this person's name in books and other sources. Their claim to notability is at least plausible enough for this not to qualify for speedy processing. Please apply more rigor with these kinds of weird requests in the future. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Also there were a bunch of incoming links to the article that seem to have been removed automatically, I rolled these all back, sorry for the notification spam. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I note that you thought my reason for deletion was so blatantly false that you restored the article without consulting me. Well, if you think a page full of such language as "His accurate score selection and preparation for each performance made his music performances have a rich and refined content" is not merely insufficiently promotional for speedy deletion, but so unpromotional as to justify summary restoration without even consultation or discussion, then your idea of what constitutes promotion is radically different from mine. I am also totally bewildered by your statement "Unfortunately, it wasn't [unambiguous promotion], which can be verified by e.g. looking up this person's name in books and other sources." How on earth can looking up what is said about someone in other places give any information whatsoever about whether something in this article is promotional or not? What if I edit the article to say "Mladen Bašić is the most wonderful pianist ever to have walked the earth. You will find listening to his playing a truly uplifting experience. I strongly urge you to buy recordings of his work, which are available from www.my-record-sale-website.com"? Would you say that wasn't promotional, on the basis of what you can find written about him in other places? Not unless your understanding of the word "promotional" is one that is utterly beyond me. Whether what is written in a Wikipedia article is promotional or not is a matter of what is written in that Wikipedia article.
Having said that, perhaps speedy deletion was not the best way of dealing with the article, as it is short enough to make editing it to make it less promotional a reasonably easy task. I'll have a go at that. JBW (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
All of this was in the article probably for years before this abuser came by, and doesn't constitute a majority of the article (at least my quick skim didn't indicate so), so I think it's safer to consider it a content issue that we can resolve without speedy deletion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Joy: Yes, I have already acknowledged that speedy deletion wasn't the best way to deal with it. (However, I don't understand the relevance of the amount of time it has spent in the article.) JBW (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it's prudent to apply some sense of organic consensus to articles when pondering major changes like a speedy deletion - if this was an orphaned article with few edits, it'd be more likely that it just went under the radar; but if it lived for years, with numerous contributors, without even a cleanup tag, it just seems a bit less probable that everyone just missed a critical issue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Puzzling CSD decline

JBW, please explain your very puzzling decline decision on The customer is always right (disambiguation). The notice at the bottom of a DAB says: "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title The customer is always right". Besides the primary title, no other articles are listed. The blue links are to articles which are not being disambiguated by this topic. This is not disambiguating anything. We can't just have a list of indiscriminate information. I think at the very least, we'd need an actual article relevant to the title besides the primary topic. The CSD template says: "either a disambiguation page that disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages or disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page", which to me implies a DAB needs multiple relevant article links. Perhaps it would help to explain your thinking. Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bungle: Here are some comments which I hope may help you.
You say "Besides the primary title, no other articles are listed". In fact, the disambiguation page currently lists 12 articles, and at the time when I declined your speedy deletion nomination it listed 7 of them, namely The customer is always right, List of Sin City yarns, List of South Korean films of 2006, 2019 in British television, List of programs broadcast by Oprah Winfrey Network, Rainbow (TV series), and List of 118 episodes. Every one of those is an article, every one of them is linked in the disambiguation page, and every one of them has some information, albeit it little, about one thing or another called "The customer is always right". I can only assume that you think for some reason that a disambiguation page must link only to articles which are substantially about the topic which is the title of the disambiguation page, though you have not explicitly said so. If so, that is a misunderstanding. Someone may come to Wikipedia to find out about the Korean film "The customer is always right", in which case the disambiguation page will take them to an article which will provide them with such information as, for example, that its cast included Myeong Kye-nam, Sung Ji-ru, and Sung Hyun-ah, and that its director was Oh Ki-hyun. Someone else may come to find out about the edition of the television series "Rainbow" called "The customer is always right", in which case the disambiguation page will take them to an article which will tell them that it was released on video in 1994, and what other episodes were included with it. That is what a disambiguation page is for: to enable readers to find what information there is about a topic, where there are multiple articles which contain mention of the particular expression they are searching for. Of course, such readers might well prefer there to be a full article on the topic they are looking for, rather than just a brief mention in an article mainly about other stuff, but the fact that there isn't much information available on a topic isn't a good reason for not helping people to find what little there is. (Brief advice on this matter of linking to a topic mentioned in an article not substantially on that topic but which mentions it is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Items appearing within other articles.) JBW (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your very thoroughly considered response. I have absorbed your comments, though cannot quite decide whether it is the page itself which is flawed or the conclusion this is a suitable DAB page per policy. To be clear in relation to your comment about whether I believe a DAB should have at least some articles substantially relevant to the subject, well, yes, I do think that. What I do not feel like I can say with conviction is whether this belief is explicitly supported by policy (although that was my interpretation of the CSD notice wording). I entirely take the view that having some entries that don't relate to an explicitly relevant article, but have a mention on a separate article, can be useful and beneficial, however the articles which are listed here I think are scraping the barrel with regards to inclusion, and I think it is a somewhat desperate attempt by the new creator to make it seem more relevant than it is (particularly the episodes and broadcast mention). I don't actually recall seeing another DAB (esp of this length) where the only explicit link was to the primary topic itself.
Alas, while I have a view on this (as also it seems the subsequent CSD proposer did too), I am not sure enough in my own belief to dispute your own understanding. To me, the blue links are not sufficiently disambiguating the subject, although i'm unsure if it's sufficient grounds to pursue proposing deletion (yet I think the DAB could be sustained with the creation of some credible new pages). I do, once again, appreciate you taking the time to explain your own understanding. Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Bungle: I'm not really happy with the disambiguation page myself, and if you were to take it to a deletion discussion I probably wouldn't post a "keep". However, I am quite convinced convinced that it isn't covered by the given speedy deletion criterion. JBW (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Bungle: Actually, where I said "I probably wouldn't post a 'keep'" I should have said "I might not post a 'keep'". I would have to think about it. JBW (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyaegbumercy

Thank you for your help and generosity, JBW. I think they are trying and want to do well. Time will tell but at least they are communicating which is more than we often get from people participating in these efforts. S0091 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@S0091: I really feel sympathy for people in this situation. In good faith they try to do things as they are taught to by people they have every reason to think are teaching them correctly, only to find they are told they are doing things wrong, and in some cases that they are blocked from editing. However, the alternative of just letting them continue to edit disruptively is unattractive. You are perfectly right in saying "at least they are communicating which is more than we often get from people participating in these efforts". On the other side, you are clearly making a significant effort to help the editor, whereas all too often good-faith but inexperienced editors just get "warnings" which make no attempt to explain what is considered problematic about their editing, often coming across more like threats than warnings. Thank you for putting in that effort. JBW (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I feel awful for the participants. I started with warnings as did other editors and eventually left them a final warning with a note asking them to stop and communicate, which is what precipitated the now long ongoing conversation. I also posted a note at ANI trying to find out a contact for the effort - WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1107#1lib1ref #1AfLibWk. An editor pinged Astinson (WMF) who did respond but could not provide a direct contact. I then had a subsequent conversation with Astinson on his talk page here, where he stated folks getting blocked is part of it. I didn't respond back because I found that less than satisfactory to say the least. Getting blocked is demoralizing for an AGF editor just doing what they were told and clearly if someone is blocked that means the community also had to deal with disruption. Its in general a poor overall approach with poor outcomes. I could go on and I am sure you could as well. Anyway, the WMF is designing a tool to help track these events which is a positive step. S0091 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I found a related complaint. There is something perverse in those encouraging new editors to edit, yet not really helping them learn our culture, only for those same editors who cause us frustration to complain we were short with them. I think WMF does enough to undercut the editing community's relationship with new editors to recommend its abolition. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

When I was seventeen,

I was an entrepreneur too. I had a lawn business. Did my own double entry book keeping. 😃 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Still stalking my editing then? JBW (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: It will give you some idea of my age if I tell you how I earned money when I was seventeen. I had a vacation job in the computer department of a large industrial company. The computer occupied a whole floor of a fairly large building. I never saw the computer, because it was far too precious an object to allow just anyone to enter its presence; only the computer operators and technicians had that privilege, not the mere mortals who programmed it, prepared data for it, and in fact did anything for it which didn't involve physically touching the hardware. To make sure that nobody other than the computer operators and technicians stepped into the sacred presence, on the floor of the building reserved for it there were locked gates across the elevator doors, so I could stop the elevator there and open its doors, but I couldn't step out of it. Likewise, of course, the stairs had locked doors on that floor. Nobody there thought I was in my right mind when I said that I thought in a few years computers would be small enough and cheap enough for anyone to have a computer at home. JBW (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
They'd be surprised at the phone in my pocket. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Absolutely. With more computing power than they could probably imagine. JBW (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Remember the computers from the Apollo program? Wow. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I did not have a website when I was seventeen. I do now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Youngsters. Tiderolls
Well, Tide rolls, I can't judge how much of a youngster I may be to you, because your age is, as far as I know, a closely guarded secret. However, Deepfriedokra is very much a youngster, being somewhere in the range 2 to 10 years my junior. Returning to the subject of long past computers, it occurred to me after writing my comments above that I actually have much older computer-related memories than from when I was 17. In fact I am just about old enough to remember when a computer was a person employed to do arithmetic calculations, while one of those new fangled machines used for the same purpose was an electronic computer. JBW (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll narrow the range a bit. When I was born, the American flag only had 48 stars in the canton. Tiderolls 13:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
(scratches chin) hmmmmm -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A question from Tulsipres

@JBW what unhelpful edits please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulsipres (talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tulsipres: It's difficult to imagine how you could possibly think that the kind of edits you have been making are helpful. You may possibly, however, have thought that though not helpful they were at least harmless, but if so you were mistaken, as cluttering up editing history with pointless edits makes it difficult to keep track of the meaningful ones. JBW (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

hello. I am learning how to use wikipedia. Tulsipres (talk)

@Tulsipres: I now see that since I posted my original message you have made some more meaningful edits, so maybe your first edits were just practice. However, editors who start out by making about 10 or a few more totally trivial edits usually turn out to be here for unconstructive purposes. If that isn't so in your case then please ignore the message I originally sent you, and accept my apologies. JBW (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Plastique Tiara

Just to let you know, Plastique Tiara (Drag queen) as moved to mainspace by another user. I moved it to lowercase the dab term, but only after *that* did I realize that Plastique Tiara was full locked. I've posted on Project talk page looking for evaluation. After some editing, it *may* have enough to be kept. I wanted to let you know. I'm not sure of procedure beyond that, but if you think that additionally users on the AFD should be notified, I will do so.Naraht (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see my request at Talk:Plastique Tiara to restore the article history. The AfD outcome was redirect, not delete, and the article history is helpful for demonstrating to other editors what's been done and discussed previously. Again, please restore for future reference. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the fly

Thanks for the fly. Tulsipres (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tulsipres: For just a moment I wondered what on earth you meant. 🤔? 💡! JBW (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

✌🤝 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulsipres (talk • contribs) 01:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

TPA

Hi JBW. I know it's not customary to block talk page access for an IP, but on User talk:140.0.46.19, the user keeps copying and pasting lengthy article content on their talk page. Since you were the one who blocked them for LTA, I thought I would suggest that you revoke talk page access for them as well. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drm310: Thanks for letting me know. You are perfectly right about it not being usual to block talk page access for IP addresses, but that's only because of the risk of accidentally catching other users of the same address, and in this case there has never been any editing from the IP address that isn't obviously this person, so I think the risk is negligible. I've blocked talk page access and deleted the talk page, since it has never been used for legitimate talk page messages. There's unconstructive editing which shows every appearance of being from this person since (to my knowledge) at least as far back as 2016. There's something depressing about anyone who single-mindedly keeps up such a stupid way of passing their time for year after year after year. JBW (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Question from DemocratGreen

Hi, would you be able to please retrieve the Advance_ZincTek page for the deleted material for future reference and improvement? I plan to keep working on it as a draft. I was using the BASF page as a reference since they are the largest supplier in the cosmetic zinc oxide space, but if you have any suggestions I'd be happy to shift the focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocratGreen (talk • contribs) 23:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@DemocratGreen: I've restored the article and moved it to Draft:Advance ZincTek. JBW (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC) • @JBW Thank you!

Self requested block

hi JBW, i see that you do self requested blocks, my account is @When the lmpostor is sus! and i'm sure someone has my password and i cleared my chrome cookies. also, the hijacking message appears. could you block it for me please? 104.235.68.154 (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

and there's also this vandalism 104.235.68.154 (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
never mind, didnt realize it was reverted 104.235.68.154 (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I assume that by "never mind" you mean that you no longer want the account blocked. However, please note the following.
  • Blocking an account because of an IP request is problematic, because it's difficult to know that it's really the same person. If you ever want a block on your account again, log into your account to make the request, unless you can't log into it.
  • If you haven't already done so change your password.
  • I very strongly encourage you to set an email address on your account. That will have several advantages, including making it possible to recover your account if you lose access to it because of a password change, or because you gorget your password.
  • You said "the hijacking message appears". Do you mean a message telling you that your account may have been hijacked? If so, since my account has never been hijacked I have never seen that message. Can you tell me exactly what it says?
  • If any more editing like the example you gave, I will consider whether to block the account anyway, hijacked or not. JBW (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    I will explain more after I come home from school, sorry 104.235.127.121 (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    Ok, im probably not gonna get my account back. theres really no way to prove its mine, and i wont have time to edit because of school and stuff. thanks for being helpful though, i appreciate it :) 104.235.127.121 (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    hey @JBW, im the Ip adress here, i can finally log into my account :D. i dont know how someone has been logged into it for 2 months straight XDDD. also i did create a new account, but i have no use for it now, :(. When the lmpostor is sus! (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Disable TPA

Hey could you disable the TPA of Pork for Muslims? Thanks! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please? They are literally not using their talk page for anything constructive. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf:  Done In my opinion the username alone should have been enough reason to bock without talk page access right from the accout's first edit. JBW (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Ya probably. I would assume you're saying that because Muslim's don't eat meat? I dunno I'm not familiar with religions originating from the middle east. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Muslims regard pigs as utterly unclean, and don't eat them or have anything to do with them. There is no way anyone could possibly create a username like that without intending it to be offensive to muslims. JBW (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Uh... I got another for ya. "Doesn't feed the ferret". ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I would probably disable the TPA of all of that user's socks. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Now please. SOrry to rush you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
And now Steve is watching news... geez how many socks does this guy have to harass me? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I have things I need to do other than babysit this moron. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I feel like we should get a CU to check for what other accounts this guy has so we can disable their TPA so I can actually get some real work done. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: I agree with that. However, I'm afraid I have to go off and do other things now, but I'll get back as soon as I can. JBW (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
ALright sounds good. IT seems like they've stopped for now. Thanks for helping me out. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: I can't see any more socks now, and it looks as though you may have consulted a CheckUser about it, in which case there probably isn't anything more fo me to do, but please let me know if there is some further help I can give. JBW (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

More TPA

Hi again, JBW. Guess what, another blocked user with spam edits on their talk page! I think revoking talk page access is warranted. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Drm310:  Done. Thanks. JBW (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi JBW. I'm leaving Wikipedia.

I am now retiring from Wikipedia after 5 years of editing, but I will still continue to view its pages. I am requesting a self-requested block per a request here. Please permanently block me. Adios! RapMonstaXY (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. JBW (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #63662

Epf2018 asks that you look at their request. You are their best hope. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I think that it give a more realistic impression to say that I'm their least bad hope, for reasons I have explained at UTRS. However, thanks for letting me know. JBW (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure. You are good with people in trouble. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
i really don't think they are the same people but then i can't see what ip's they are cause im not a checkuser, are the ip the same for both accounts, as in the accused sock person and the sock person? just asking if they are the same Lolkikmoddi (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP article request for review/attention

You might want to take a look at this hacking-related BLP article and the talk. There's a serious dispute on whether to trim the majority of the article or not due to differing interpretations of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and so on. An example is whether to use "marginally reliable" source or not; some advocates attribution in-text while others want complete removal. Concerns abound that systematic bias becomes serious after a trim against non-English perspectives. TLDR: Wikipedia:Explanationism vs WP:OVERSIMPLIFY.

The trimming has since went through but it has devolved into multitude of disruption, stonewalling, canvassing, and so on, apart from the systematic bias issues. Best if all the editors, who are too overworked/obsessed on that by this stage, are forced to disengage/drop it while punting the article to WikiEd for rewrite by uninvolved editors away from the whole mess. 139.28.207.48 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to go now, and won't get a chance to look at his for at least 10 hours, maybe more. You may like to ask someone else for help. JBW (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you and it's fine then, would contacting WikiEd work as well? 139.28.207.48 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Nevermind as I've sent WikiEd a message. Have a nice day. 139.28.207.48 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

AWB user list

Hello, I see you're currently active, could you please add this public account to this page, I wish to test User:Joeytje50/JWB. Thank you, - FlightTime Public (open channel) 23:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

NVRMND. Thank you, - FlightTime Public (open channel) 01:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hippo Hardware and Trading Company

Can you please restore Hippo Hardware and Trading Company to draft space? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? Doing so would achieve nothing useful whatever, since it would obviously never be suitable to become an article. JBW (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
That's absolutely incorrect. There's plenty of sourcing. I'm asking for restoration for further expansion and improvement, please. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, if there's "plenty" of suitable sourcing which shows that the shop satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines then I wonder why you didn't include some of it in the article originally. However, if you are right, and there's "plenty" of it available, then you won't have any difficulty in showing me three suitable sources, and then I will draftify the article. Not brief mentions, or mere inclusions in lists, or blatantly promotional web sites, such as pages which say "sponsored business content" in small pront at the bottom (but which don't need to say that, because one glance at their content screams out THIS IS MARKETING COPY) or, in short, any of the references you posted in the article. Restoring and draftifying the article with nothing better than that would be a waste of your time, and a waste of the time of whoever will have to eventually delete it. JBW (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
If you are not willing to restore the article, then please let me know where I can submit a formal request. I would like to access the markup again, please. Also, I'm more than happy to continue a notability discussion on the draft Talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I haven't said that I am "not willing to restore the article": I have said that I am perfectly willing to do so if you provide a few examples of the "plenty" of suitable sources which you say exist. What's the problem? Why don't you just go ahead and let me know what those sources are? Then I will restore and draftify the article. Really. I mean that. I have also, said, however, that in my opinion it would be a waste of time to restore it if you can't provide suitable sourcing, but that is obviously not a problem if you can. You say there are plenty of suitable sources, and I asked for three, but for some reason you are unwilling to provide them... all right, give me one independent reliable source which provides substantial independent coverage of this local shop, and I'l draftify it. JBW (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
https://www.inc.com/leigh-buchanan/hippo-hardware-portland-steven-miller.html ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Errm... What??????? You really don't get the impression I mentioned above as soon as you glance at that page: "THIS IS MARKETING COPY"? But what is more, I even pointed out that you need to check for tags such as "SPONSORED BUSINESS CONTENT" specifically to help you to avoid this kind of mistake, and yet you still didn't check that it doesn't say that on the page you are offering? To save you the trouble of checking now, I'll just tell you that it does, but, as I have already indicated, even without that tag it would be so blindingly obvious that the tag isn't really necessary. I'm astonished that an editor who has been around as long as you have can have so little idea as to what constitutes suitable sourcing. Neither that page nor any of the other pages you gave as references in the article even begins to be suitable. I could restore and draftify the article, but really, honestly, I am reluctant to do so because if you can't produce any better sourcing thatn you have done then it would be a waste o time for you and for anyone else who becomes involved. I have not just looked at the sources you cited: I have also made my own searches fo suitable sources, and there just aren't any. This is just a local shop, which does not come near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I repeat my offer from above: if you can show me just one suitable reference I will restore and draftify the article, but a blatantly promotional page which even states that it is paid advertising is not a suitable reference. Also, if you do privude a suitable reference I won't be able to respond for quite a few hours, because I have to go now. JBW (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Isn't the 'sponsored content' tag for the Salesforce piece below the Hippo content? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Yup. The "Sponsored Business Content" labels the four spamlinks on the website, below the actual article. It does not apply to the article referenced. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, I've used my Multnomah County Library card to search the archives of The Oregonian, which is most definitely a reputable journalistic publication. A search for "Hippo Hardware" in the pre-1988 archives yields 29 returns spanning 1978 to 1987. A search for "Hippo Hardware" in the 1988-present archives yields 55 returns. There's no way this topic is not notable. I would honestly rather see this article restored and nominated for deletion so a community discussion can take place, than lost because one editor tagged for speedy deletion unnecessarily. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Sorry, I evidently didn't check carefully enough as far as the "sponsored business content" tag was concerned. Thank you for putting me right on that. I will restore the article, and we can see how it goes. JBW (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Much appreciated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

JBW (public)

Hi JBW. A global lock request, which may be prudent if this is the LTA I think it is, would look more convincing coming from you. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Thanks for telling me. However, by the time I had written out a request and was ready to save it on the global request noticeboard, I noticed that the locking had already been done, following a request by Blaze Wolf. I would be fascinated to learn what LTA you think it is, if you can tell me (by email if necessary) without breaching confidentiality rules. JBW (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I have now seen that at least three separate editors went to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention about this. I guess you may have seen relevant CU information, but since the account never did any editing on any Wikimedia project I wonder how so many non-CU editors were so confident it wasn't me. 🤔JBW (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Good question. I may have emailed you some info. I generally seek some kind of confirmation before requesting a lock, but a few things made me comfortable with blocking on this wiki and then taking the steps that I did. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I requested the lock since it seemed like something that's lockable. I would also be interested to know the info if you are allowed to tell me (via email that is). Also, JBW I just use Global Twinkle so that I can request global locks easier for when I encounter LTAs that are glocked. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: I didn't even know that Global Twinkle existed, but it looks as though it's likely to be helpful. JBW (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
It is. On all Wikis I'm able to use it to report users to m:SRG and on some I can even CSD pages. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Well, I've installed it, and I'll see how much use I make of it. I admit I have very often not bothered to post Steward requests when I might have done, because it was just too much trouble, so perhaps this tool will encourage me to do so more often. JBW (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations for an old edit

in the article Nick Carter (singer) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Carter_%28singer%29&type=revision&diff=1028663702&oldid=1028571688):

A German (usually quality) newspaper, Berliner Zeitung, complained that the Nick Carter (singer) article does not give any information about the Melissa S's allegations: https://www.msn.com/de-de/nachrichten/other/die-dunkle-seite-der-backstreet-boys-sollte-man-noch-auf-ein-konzert-gehen/ar-AA12VuqX?ocid=msedgntp (the complaint is the sentence "So lässt sich beispielsweise in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia nichts dazu finden, dass es Vergewaltigungsvorwürfe gegen Nick Carter gab"). I am sure that your edit was correct, the previous source https://web.archive.org/web/20180912215309/https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/12/entertainment/nick-carter-sexual-assault-case/index.html does not prove anything. Wikipedia is not gossip, and Berliner Zeitung did have (i hope: usually has) the same attitude. Yours --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello JBW, thanks for the very responsive action on blocking the "Chennai vandal" and also reverting its edits as the person who keeps evading the blocks are always making a rampage on every car-related articles. This has been problematic for me and other editors for the past several days now as the person keeps hopping into other IPs as well and I or someone had to revert it for countless times already. Cheers to both of you and Materialscientist for the help and also have a nice day too! VictorTorres2002 (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

ArtisTube and Flshohag

These two users are the same person, as both drafted the same article in userspace about ArtisTube. I noticed that you blocked ArtisTube. You may consider blocking Flshohag as well. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: I think you are probably right, and I considered blocking both accounts, but they could possibly be two people working together, and when I checked Flshohag hadn't yet done anything which would justify a block on their own editing alone, without considering ArtisTube's editing, so I decided to give the benefit of the doubt for now, with the option of blocking if the account continues in the same way. JBW (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Max Wachman - Thank you

The creating editor has achieved a 48 hour block. but has not yet engaged either here or on Commons where they are also under a short duration block. They appear to be unwilling to be collegial 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fiddle Faddle: I was thinking of blocking the editor, and I am perfectly happy that Ged UK has done so, though I'm puzzled by "vandalism" being given as the reason. Promotional editing, editing contrary to the COI guidelines, almost certainly undisclosed paid editing, failure to respond to contacts from other editors, persistent inappropriate removal of templates, etc, but I don't see any vandalism. JBW (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Neither do I, though adding copyright files might be. I'm wondering if Ged UK might wish to adjust the block reason, because the audit trail might look a bit thin, but that is up to them.
I'm hoping you will also have your eyes on them when their block expires. I think they have bene lucky not to be indeffed for UPE, but the block may get their attention. I've been tracking them for a while here and on Commons as I'm sure you can tell. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I've clarified the block. The block script I used didn't have that clarity. I should have used the traditional method, but AIV was so backed up with reports that I went for the faster option. Thanks for highlighting. GedUK  07:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
See ANI. The behaviour has continued, which is a great pity 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah well. They come and they go. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks like they also created User:Aliawalsh2, a couple of minutes after Aliawalsh22's most recent edit but before the block, if I'm reading the time stamps right. Only one edit so far, to one of the two articles edited by 22, and in the same style. --bonadea contributions talk 13:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Bonadea Well spotted, Sneaky name that I never noticed. She appears to be employed by an equitation centre related to her pet topics. Definitely UPE in my view 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Fiddle Faddle and Bonadea: I can never understand the mindset of editors like this. Starting editing in ways which are unacceptable is understandable, because almost all of us start editing knowing nothing about Wikipedia's policies, but once they have been informed of the relevant policies, stubbornly digging themselves further and further into a hole, when it would actually be easier to just cooperate, I don't understand. JBW (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
It appears that the best thing do do when standing in a deep hole is to keep digging. I smell an editor desperate either for a job at Karlswood, or who is employed by the place already and trying to prove themselves.
Regrettably, they have. Pity 😳 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@F-f: For years I have been of the opinion that, while Wikipedia's outing policy is in principle fine, it is commonly interpreted far too strictly. Many times I have seen a person who, considering their Wikipedia editing, their username, and information on other websites, they are to all intents and purposes openly announcing who they are in real life and where they work, but woe betide anyone who says so on Wikipedia. I note that this editor has said she has a conflict of interest, but has not said why, or at least not on Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
When someone self identifies, then they self identify. I'm easy to find, for example. Outing those who choose impenetrable user ids is a very different matter in my opinion. A too strict interpretation is the human race enjoying imposing ever harsher rules upon itself 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure, JBW, if you check your email now! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Re the mindset of some editors – yesterday I was trying to get a new user to understand the fact that a biography can't be based on unreliable sources, or on no sources at all, and they blanked their draft in a huff and said something on the lines of "I bet you're a teacher". Which is apparently an insult! (Who knew?) --bonadea contributions talk 10:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Bonadea: Well, I suppose most people come across ideas such as providing references to reliable sources only from teachers. Also most people's experience of posting things on the internet is based on social media sites, blogs, web forums, and the like, where anyone can post anything they like, with no requirement for any source other than one's own ideas. A result of this is that a lot of people genuinely think that stuff about reliabiltiy is purely something invented by teachers just to impose in lessons, not anything that anyone in the real world bothers about. Also, having spent many years teaching in areas of very low social status, I have known many people who regard teachers as bad, and would be likely to think that calling someone a teacher is an insult. My guess is that your experience of working in a university probably exposes you to a very different attitude to teachers. JBW (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being flippant, mostly because I recognise the attitude you mention and it makes me sad. I would never have the patience and pedagogical skills to teach children or teenagers, and I admire those who do! --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for 902 (PTV Bus)

NotOrrio has asked for a deletion review of 902 (PTV Bus). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 07:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

We appear to have a block evader...

See this user vs this user. Thanks - wolf 18:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

And thanks again. ([4]) - wolf 22:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kai Cenat

Hello there,

I see you have speedily deleted my article on Kai Cenat for being a reproduction of a previously deleted article. I heavily disagree with this decision for the reason being that the article was substantially different to the previous deletion, included new notable award nominations for the entertainer along with in detail coverage of his work by Dot Esports and Yahoo! News which indicate passing of WP:GNG. G4 specifically mentions that "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies.". I have spent a lot of time creating the article and finding reliable coverage surrounding the topic and find it extremely disappointing to see my work speedy deleted in an inappropriate manner. Deletion should've been the subject of a second AfD discussion. I would like you to review your decision before I create a deletion contestation.

Thank you, Célestin Denis (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That "deletion contestation" was made all of six minutes later at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 October 30, if you didn't see my temp restore of the page on your watchlist. I'd have notified you earlier if I'd read the above instead of just the edit summary; since it popped up at the same time as the drv, I assumed it was the notification. —Cryptic 07:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Long-term block evasion from Dante8

Hi, I spoke to you a few months ago about some long-term block evasion on the Elsie Shrigley article. You blocked this account [5], the same user uses many IPs that all trace to Pennsylvania. Based on what I can see they only edit the same themed articles relating to abortion, feminism or women's rights, so their writing style is easy to find. Examples include Feminism in the United Kingdom, Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) etc. You have already blocked [6], [7] etc. This same user is now using the IP 72.94.88.14 [8]. The IP traces to Pennsylvania like the others and the editing is the same on topics related to women's rights. I believe there is good behavioural evidence to block 72.94.88.14. This IP is currently making many edits on Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting). It is clearly the same user as the blocked DoesWhateverASpiderCant as is confirmed if you check the history of the article Timeline of disability rights outside the United States. Back in July they were using this IP [9] but 72.94.88.14 appears to be the most recent. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I have checked the history of the Timeline of reproductive rights legislation article. 72.94.88.14 is currently editing it, but if you go back and back, you will see that 100.34.237.4 was editing it in June and July [10] and before that was 100.11.62.135 which you blocked in March. They have been editing these same articles for years. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I went through the article Timeline of women in religion in the United States and I see now that this is all block evasion from Dante8 who has an SPI archive. This account was probably them as well [11]. I have filed an SPI [12] Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Kai Cenat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kai Cenat, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Cenat (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Request

Hi JBW. Would you please delete Taylor Swift (label) (which was created by blocked user Notsammyray) and S. Carter Records (probably original research and has no evidence). 121.121.168.142 (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Gasbros Gaming Network

Hello JBW,I would like you to review the Deletion of Gasbros Gaming Network Article page.I would be happy to make the needed edits/revision to the parts which you deed shouldnt be posted. Iamknightrae (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iamknightrae: I have restored the page and moved it to Draft:GasBros Gaming Network. You can work on improving it there, and then submit it for review. JBW (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Something to keep an eye on

Hi, JB. Championship Off-Road Racing apparently reorganized this year but the anonymous editor who updated the article went about it the wrong way. Seems to me that if this new incarnation is notable, it should be added as its own article rather than replacing the existing one.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrongful conviction of Mauhu Fawcett

Hi JBW

As far as I can tell, you deleted my draft article with the above title. I spent hours and hours working on this. I am happy to revise the parts that you believe breach copywrite. Can you post a copy of the article to my sandbox - or post it somewhere so that I can work on it please. Clooless (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Clooless: I can email a copy of what you wrote if you enable email access. To do that, click on the "preferences" link right at the top of the page, and you will find a link for adding an email address. When you have done that, let me know, and I'll send the draft to you. I can't post it anywhere on Wikipedia, as that would mean I personally would be responsible for knowingly infringing copyright.
I can tell that you must have put quite a lot of work into the deaft, and I can thoroughly understand how frustrating it must be to see all that work deleted, but unfortunately it was so unambiguously copied from the stated web site that it just can't be accepted as an article. There was a substantial amount of text which was word for word the same, and more which was somewhat rewritten but still close enough to the original to make it clear that it was essentially a modified copy of that original. You really have to write your own text from scratch, rather than taking an existing account and making changes to it.
I wish you well with rewriting the draft. JBW (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Done. Clooless (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I have posted a reply to your second deletion of the draft. Clooless (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
You have a message on my Talkpage waiting for your response. Clooless (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warrior GOG88

Giving you a heads-up regarding GOG88, who hardly ever does anything other than remove content without explanation. Now they're having an edit war at the vandalism noticeboard.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

CSD G12

Sorry about that, I pasted from my cache, but it was still the prior Review. I redid it. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Easily done JBW (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Sock?

Finntbigguy (talk · contribs) and QuebecFan (talk · contribs). Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Could be, but there isn't enough evidence to go on. JBW (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi

I tried writing to the administrator and was wondering if you could llease help me recapture the draft that was deleted from my sandbox. It was a lot of work and I have no other copy. If you could undelete it momentarily, or perhaps send me a copy I would appreciate it. Thanks. MichelePadua (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Deji Olatunji

Hi, I see that this page is currently protected. Would you consider creating a new redirect to Deji (YouTuber)? 162 etc. (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

deletion of Deji (YouTuber)

Hi I see you deleted Deji (YouTuber) under WP:G5 however did you check if there was "substantial edits by others" by others first? As a lot of edits have been done recently due to the Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Deji. Does this deletion mean the page needs to be recreated from scratch now? Paulpat99 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Paulpat99: @162 etc.: I have started a deletion review for this at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 15. Please comment over there, as this may be of interest to both of you (and JBW too). DrewieStewie (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ATEQ Page Deleted

Hi, I see you deleted the Wikipedia article I made for ATEQ, I spent hours working on it, and still had to add all external sources in regard to the company. Would it be possible to understand why it got deleted, and how to be able to repost it without it being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcosta ateq (talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: user pages

Deleting them is not useless. There's about 1600 of them at quarry:query/68085 that need to go so we can better keep track of when pages are created in or moved to these user spaces of non-existent users, often by new or student editors, so that said editors can be informed of their mistake and have their pages moved to their own user spaces. The effort required is why I've only been nominating them in small chunks at a time. Uhai (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Uhai: OK, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining. I have now deleted the pages for which I previously declined your deletion requests. JBW (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Weird protection logic

Hey! I recently came across Template:Anuel AA, which is in a weird situation (expired edit protection with indefinite autoconfirmed move protection). Since moving pages requires autoconfirmed anyways, this protection level does nothing and is considered as no protection by the protection module, and can actually confuse some templates (in this case, {{Collapsible option}}) into trying to add protection templates when it shouldn't, leading to bad categorisation. Since you previously protected the page, could the move protection be entirely removed? Thanks. Aidan9382 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aidan9382: When a page is edit-protected, by default move-protection automatically gets added to the protection log too. For the reason you mention, that seems pointless. My guess is that it's just a hangover from the days before page moves required autoconfirmed rights, though I suppose there could be some reason in the background why having it logged separately serves some non-obvious purpose. However, I don't know why the move-protection was set as indefinite, although the edit-protection was for a limited time. I can't think of any reason why I would want to do that, so I suppose it was some kind of mistake. Anyway, I've removed the protection now. Thanks for pointing it out. JBW (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sock

Hi JBW. You just blocked Rita Khouryy (thank you), but there is another slightly older account, Rita El Khouryy - same content, same editing habits. Enough to block as a sockmaster? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Drm310:  Done Thanks. JBW (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

COI/RGW

I looked at the latest response at Loyalty.Ltd's talk page... I think he just admitted to have a COI, and his edits are WP:RGW in nature. You're welcome to explain the error of his ways, or I can later when I have time. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

UniMás

Didn't see the deletion discussion. I'm just so used to dubious drafts piling up in User:AlexNewArtBot/TelevisionStationsSearchResult... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Sammi. I didn't know about that page, but I certainly agree that there's a lot of "dubious drafts" on that topic. I also think that this draft is completely useless, and could do with deleting, but it doesn't seem to qualify for the particular speedy deletion criterion you gave, nor, as far as I can see, any other one. Unless it gets more editing, probably the best way to deal with it is just to leave it until it qualifies for WP:CSD#G13 in six months. JBW (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"DIO SUCKS"

Something tells me they'll be back again.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC) gggg

@Skywatcher68: Yes, almost certainly. There have also been IP edits that I think are the same person. JBW (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § My wikipedia page not found

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § My wikipedia page not found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi JBW. Perhaps you can help sort this out? You're the administrator who deleted Jino Kunnumpurath and that seems to be the article which is being asked about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thanks for letting me know. I have written a fairly long message in that discussion, in an attempt to help the editor understand how things are. Unfortunately, what I have written is unlikely to be welcome to them, though. JBW (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I am intrigued to see the short cut "THQ" which you have used. Do you know what the Q represents? JBW (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for responding at the Teahouse. I don't think there was anything wrong with what you posted. I think (despite some others feeling differently) a detailed answer is generally more helpful than a shorter but perhaps bit more coddling type of response. As for the short-cut's "Q", I've always assumed it was for "T"ea "H"ouse "Q"uestions, but I could be wrong. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Dennis page protection

sigh...

They're back.

I get this isn't the most professional way to write a Wikipedia discussion thread, but at this point, I'm just tired. I've lost count of how many times I've reported these London IP to WP:AIV for the same vandal edits to Alexander Dennis bus pages over and over and over again. They're damn well persistent.

I'm not happy about the impression it gets, but I'd like to request Alexander Dennis Enviro200, Alexander Dennis Enviro400 and Alexander Dennis Enviro400 MMC be protected (for a year/shorter timespan?) in the same way you did Alexander Dennis Enviro200 MMC and Template:Alexander Dennis last month. Believe they're the common pages they frequent; hopefully, they won't start on the other pages and that might make them give up this annoying act. Hullian111 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

YGM

ygm, maybe check the spam folder. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Yes, in spam it was. Thanks. JBW (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi JBW

@JBW: Nice to meet you once again. I just need your opinion regarding the protection for the page Lokesh Kanagaraj. Is it possible for full protection of that page or semi protection of the page you feel is better? The page needs to be be protected such that established editors can only edit that page and even users like Galaxy j7max or Rohithhs200 wouldn’t be like given the access to edit on it. The problem is that these editors are adding films which have not started filming per WP:NFF. Theoder2055 (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Theoder2055: As you have probably seen, the article has now been semi-protected by another administrator. I don't think there's any case for full protection. If semi-protection isn't enough then we could try extended confirmed protection, but on the basis of history up to now I don't see any justification even for that. JBW (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: till now the article is fine, but if any other user tries to add films which have not started filming as per WP:NFF then in that case extended confirmed protection would only work. Theoder2055 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies re: bad SDR

Hey, apologies for the bad speedy deletion request there. I don't think I read that part of the criteria correctly and assumed it was unambiguous. Could you let me know how I can best proceed with this from here? I notified the user in question of the problems with their user page months ago, but they never responded to my concerns and continued adding to it. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: No apologies needed. A completely understandable mistake. In fact I have never been totally happy with the idea that anyone who has done a significant amount of editing should be allowed to get away with things which wouldn't be allowed for a new editor, but that's how it is. If you still wish to have the page deleted, then you need to take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. The easiest way to do that is by using Twinkle's "xfd" link. JBW (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok I've done just that. Thanks for the help! :) -- Grnrchst (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

64.231.216.31

Regarding this IP address you recently blocked, it looks like talk page access needs to be revoked. Thank you. Reba16 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Reba16: Another administrator had already done that by the time I saw your message, but I decided the talk page vandalism was enough evidence of the intention of continuing vandalism to justify increasing the block time. JBW (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Reba16 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Owo (emoticon)

I'd like to have the page restored. G5 says "and that have no substantial edits by others" - I have spent some time editing the page myself, and so have others. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

At the moment I'm editing on a phone. I'll check this when I'm on a computer, because comparing strings of deleted edits is clumsy and difficult on a phone. Sorry to keep you waiting, but I hope it won't be for too long. JBW (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Alright I see, thanks. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Among Us for POTUS: I've now checked the deleted editing history. I don't really regard adding a few references and similar minor edits as substantial, but I can see you must have put a significant amount of thought and time into it, so I've restored the article. JBW (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Pilot Light Deletion

Hello,

I see that the article I created, Pilot Light, was deleted on December 4 for "unambiguous advertising or promotion." I wasn't given a chance to address or discuss this issue before it was deleted. Is there a way I could have this article restored or, at the very least, a way that I could discuss this issue or make edits so that the article may be restored? Thank you. Tjblmc20 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tjblmc20: I have restored the article and moved it to Draft:Pilot Light. I see that you actually submitted it as an "article for creation" and it was accepted. I am surprised to find that out, because the whole tenor and tone of the text looks to me like marketing or PR copy. JBW (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this. I have received help and advise from the Wikipedia help desk and have made edits to create a more neutral tone. Could I trouble you to take another look at it to see if the tone is sufficient now? Tjblmc20 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Tjblmc20: I have some thoughts which may be helpful to you, but I don't have time at present to write them down. I shall try to get back onto it as soon as I can, but I suffer from attention deficit disorder, one of the effects of which is that anything I postpone, even for a good reason as in this case, tends to carry on getting postponed, so if I haven't got back to you within 24 hours then please prompt me again. (I hope I will get onto it in much less than 24 hours, though.) JBW (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I am eager to hear your thoughts! Tjblmc20 (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Weisserrabe block

Hi JBW. Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia. I’ve just been looking at Weisserrabe (talk · contribs)’s edits since one them was on my watchlist, and I’m not convinced the edits are promotional. The website https://archive.metromod.net appears to belomng to a project associated with the European Research Council and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (https://www.lmu.de/en/) so it’s not a commercial site and not an aggregator, as far as I can see. Also, I can’t find where the actual problem was explained to Weisserrabe. Was it an assumption of wp:COI? If so, could Weisserrabe deal with the problem by creating his/her userpage and explaining their involvement in the project? I have no involvement other than spotting and (for now) reinstating the link on Trude Fleischmann‎ but I’m concerned we might be shooting a newbie. I’ve pinged @David Biddulph: and @Lopifalko:. Thanks —Northernhenge (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I looked at one of the pages and was at a loss to understand how its contents contributed anything of value to the article. I didn't trust the fact the editor was contributing similar links to innumerable articles. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Same here. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@Northernhenge: Thank you for raising your concerns, which I have thought about carefully. It seems to me that there are two issues here, namely the suitability or otherwise of the links, and the suitability or otherwise of the way the matter was dealt with.
  1. My attention was called to this editor by a report at Administrator intervention on vandalism. On checking, I saw that the editor had been posting prodigious numbers of links, all to one website, fairly rapidly. Checking a sample of those links, I formed the conclusion that, as Lopifalko has said above, they did not appear to add anything of significant value to the Wikipedia article. The external links guide says that one should normally avoid adding a link to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." Also, the editor was posting a huge number of links to one site, too quickly to be reading and considering each article in turn and considering in each case whether the relevant page on that website was or was not suitable. With the best will in the world, that is editing to use Wikipedia to attract readers to that website: that is to say, to publicise or promote the site. The fact that the site is not a commercial one is completely irrelevant: Wikipedia policy forbids promotion of anything, commercial or not.
  2. On reconsidering, I don't think the matter was handled well. The editor had been warned about "inappropriate external links", but no attempt had been made to explain what was inappropriate about them, and it isn't reasonable to expect a new editor to realise for themselves what kinds of links are considered appropriate. I think that both David Biddulph and I failed to handle the situation well. In my opinion David should have given a clearer explanation of what was considered problematic about the editing, and because he hadn't done so I should have declined the report at WP:AIV. I have therefore lifted the block, and posted a message to the editor, explaining the situation. David, templated warnings are not always the best warnings to use, and if you are going to use them a level 3 warning is rarely the best one to start with, because they tend to assume that the editor already knows essentially what the problem is about. If I decide that a templated message is sufficient then I usually start with a level two warning, because they tend to provide at least some explanation. Even then, however, I consider whether one of the templated messages is suitable, and quite often I decide not, and post a hand-crafted message.
Northernhenge, thank you for raising your concerns, which, as you will have seen from my comments above, I have taken notice of. To summarise my rather long post, I still stand by the view that the editing was inappropriate, and that if the editor had continued after appropriate warnings a block would have been reasonable, but I accept that as things were my handling of the incident was not good. JBW (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all for the helpful responses. That’s clear to me now. Best wishes. —Northernhenge (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW/Archive_81&oldid=1129994536"