Jump to content

User talk:JBW/Archive 83

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Partially blocked user

Hi. I just noticed a note about a partical block on an IP range. FYI, Special:Contributions/49.184.135.119 just vandalised Special Broadcasting Service. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: Thanks for letting me know. I've looked at the recent editing history from the IP range, and there is no pattern of recent vandalism, nor is the edit you mentioned related in any way to the editing which led to the partial block. This seems to be a one-off very ordinary vandalism edit, and the warning you gave should be enough, unless, of course, further vandalism follows. JBW (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, no worries, thanks for checking. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft Deleted

Hi JBW, My draft AllGear Digital was deleted by you for (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Can I please have my draft restored so I may edit out the advertising and promotional sections? Thank you. OutdoorGear (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


Jubilence

is a word I've seen only once before. John Scalzi's The Consuming Fire. Fun read. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I have no memory of ever having encountered the word before, but Wiktionary defines it as "Misspelling of jubilance". However, I equally have no memory of having encountered "jubilance" either, so that's not much progress. Further checking on Wiktionary finds that "jubilance" means "jubilation", which is what I guessed. However, that means that the word was really not well chosen, as it doesn't come anywhere near to describing my feelings about unblocking. In fact I was giving an enormous amount of benefit of the doubt in not simply declining right away and forgetting about it. Judging by the Wikipedia article, The Consuming Fire looks as though it could be interesting. JBW (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Re:Lifting page protections/shortening them - IP identified?

If you recall my last topic...

sigh...

Put it back.

At this point, indef everything under Alexander Dennis for all I care, because there's no way we'll probably stamp the vandalism issue out.

Now in spite of the user bouncing off different London IPs, I've done a bit of (possibly questionable) digging, and found that the IPs are linked to various accounts under the name of 'Date Funk Green'. Now I'm not sure what Wikipedia or anyone else can do with that information, but their posts line up with their vandalisms.

And I believe we have a 'motive': "Julie is a nice female name and what a coincidence. I call Alexander Dennis Enviro400 MMCs Roses because a lot of NXWM Enviro400 MMCs have the name 'Rose' on them."

...which doesn't really explain the use of London BT IPs, unfortunately - seems they're too generic. Anyway, I've found relevant posts by Date Funk Green on RateDriver (a whole string of them, in fact), ZafiraOwners.co.uk, and bizarrely enough, a fire alarm installation firm in Bristol. Seems they moved to RateDriver (and substanitally annoyed that userbase too) since the IP block, identifying themselves as being roughly from the Devon area, so who's to say the blocks don't work?

Again, I'm not sure if Wikipedia, or anyone for that matter, will do anything about it, but there you go. Seems this vandal's been at it for years. Kinda scary what searching up IPs can do, maybe we'll wind up on their 'show' that they mentioned in one post I sadly can't find anymore. Hullian111 (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hullian111: Well, the information you have dug up about the IP address is interesting, but I don't think there's anything we can do about it. You are absolutely right in saying that we won't be able to stamp the vandalism issue out. The best we can hope for in this situation is that by placing blocks and protections we can cause enough inconvenience to the vandal to significantly reduce the amount of vandalism they manage to get done, and if we are really lucky the sense of frustration it creates just may also bring forward the time when they get bored and give up. I have restored protection to some articles which have been vandalised since the old protection finished. The recent editing (or at least that which I have seen) is from the IP range 2A00:23C7:1E26:A901::/64, and there has never been any other editing from that range, so I am perfectly happy to block it for two years. Earlier editing was from 2a02:c7f:2c41:1d00::/64, but there has been other editing there, so I don't like the idea of a long block. Nevertheless, I have blocked it for a while, in case the vandal returns to that range. I also started putting partial blocks on the articles recently edited, but I came to realise that there are so many articles on Alexander Dennis which they might switch to that it was not going to be realistic to cover them all. There is more I could say, but I'm out of time, so I will have to leave it there for now. You obviously know far more than I do about this whole business, so if you can let me know any other relevant information, such as other articles attacked, or other IP addresses used, please do. JBW (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you unprotect Murder of Muammar Gaddafi

Page protected in 2011 with title now located at Killing of Muammar Gaddafi. Redirect was requested for this title to that page, but this must be unprotected first. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame: I have unprotected it and created the redirect. There may have been good reasons for not doing so, but if so I can't imagine it was important enough to be worth checking up on 12 years later. JBW (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diplomacy

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for your work in unblocking me many months ago. I've had a lot of fun contributing and it's in no small part thanks to you. Enjoy this nifty barnstar (unless this isn't a valid reason for giving one of these, in which case feel free to delete it.) George Mucus (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@George Mucus: I'm glad it has worked out well, and thanks for letting me know that it has. I believe that I am in general more disposed to unblocking editors to give them another chance than most, if not all, of the administrators who regularly review unblock requests, but unfortunately I find that I am able to do so less often than I would like to, because I can't step totally out of line with the generally agreed consensus. It is therefore particularly encouraging when, as in this case, I have successfully pushed for unblocking in the face of other administrators saying "no", and confirmation comes that may judgement was right. 🙂 JBW (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft Deleted for Institute for Integrated Transitions

Dear JBW, could you please restore my draft for the Institute for Integrated Transition page so I could try to make it more neutral and add new references? It was deleted by you for G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

It would be nice to have some advices on how to improve the page. I know (and declared) that I'm trying to create the page being part of the organisation, but would like to understand how to have the chance to make it appear as an article in the future.

IFIT is an organisation that has been active in the last 10 years and I was surprised when I found there wasn't any entry in Wikipedia about it.

I tried to follow the same structure and content of other peacebuilding organisations (for example Karuna Center for Peacebuilding) and wonder how they were able to being accepted.

Thank you in advance for your help. User:IFITComms

IFITComms (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI on musician bios

Hello, JBW,

I see you were also dealing with articles and drafts about Magikid this afternoon. Since he brought it up in his profile, I decided to go to Spotify to ask about Verified status. After going through FAQs, an AI chatbox, I finally got a hold of a Spotify staff member to ask what "Verified Artist" meant on that platform as this artist was Verified but only had 5 monthly listeners. Being Verified, while it gives an artist a nifty blue checkmark, just means they have control over editing their profile page. It doesn't convey any status regarding popularity or notability. That's what I thought but it was but it was good to get that confirmed by someone working at Spotify. Just something to keep in mind when you see more draft biographies of musical artists.

I hope you are having a great, restful summer. We are baking here in the NW US but luckily we aren't Phoenix, Arizona in the 110F! Take care, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Somebody is upset that their pet fringe topic keeps getting deleted

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empire_of_Light&diff=prev&oldid=1166154859   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"DESTROY" vandal found another new target

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.131.100.60   –18:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Great job on the team of IPs! Thanks for your help. Schazjmd (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Request on 11:59:18, 23 July 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Semilore90


Hello, I need help in reviewing this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ola_Oresanya.

The article has been rejected 3 times. I have made several corrections and adjustments to the article, and I believe that it is now in a much better state.

I will appreciate if you can also help me edit the article or give me suggestions.

Thank you


Semilore90 (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Darren Roos in Articles for Deletion

Hi JBW! Like a zombie, the Darren Roos article you voted to delete in 2020 is back. I would love to hear your views in the discussion this time around. --Rhombus (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply

I did not give answer because it was already given by other user. Mr Unknown233 (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Unknown233: Another editor posted a comment following my question, in which they linked to a comment on the subject from you, which you had posted to their talk page. However, that did not answer my question in any real sense. To move a page once in order to see whether doing so caused your account's user name to be changed might be something that a new user might do, but to claim that moving the page 16 times to a string of different titles was done for that purpose seems disingenuous. You have also not responded to the observation about the moves taking your edit count above 500. Why did you make all those page moves? JBW (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually after my first page move I was unable to restore my original thats why I didn't realise when my edit count gone above 500 Mr Unknown233 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Airtel IP block

You may be interested in WP:VPT#Massive wide-ranging IP block on Airtel India users. Certes (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"DESTROY" vandal doesn't want to DESTORY for a change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.177.135.35   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes, but only one edit, and that one 4 days ago. Let me know if you see more from the same IP address, or even from another one in the same /24 range, and I'll consider whether to block, but I don't think there's anything to be done now. JBW (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Just thought you'd find that amusing.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: Yes, I did in a way, but I'm afraid the element of amusement is rather overshadowed by the feeling "why doesn't this person stop wasting our time with this endless nonsense?" JBW (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: By the way, how does one destory? Remove a few floors from a building? Delete one of the entries from an anthology of prose fiction? JBW (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Spam folder?

Hi, JBW.

I think a past email of mine may have gone to your spam folder. Should have a timestamp of 2023-07-16 19:46 (UTC), from email address wikimedian@tamz.in. (The custom domain sometimes causes this problem... the price one pays for novelty, I suppose.)

All the best. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Tamzin. You are absolutely right: it was in my spam folder. Thanks for your very clear and detailed information. If I'd seen it earlier it would have saved me some time, but obviously you can't be blamed for that. What you said was in agreement with what I have more recently seen for myself, but your version was far more complete. Congratulations on doing such a thorough job of checking. 🙂 JBW (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I always appreciate the sincerity with which you handle unblock requests, even the kind that you and I both know will turn out to be deceptive >95% of the time. I try to emulate that in my own handling of unblock requests, and it's quite satisfying when one does get to that <5% of "Huh, maybe this actually isn't socking/UPE". (Or, satisfying in certain ways... less satisfying to then have to negotiate an unblock.) In this case... There's something about UPE that gets people to lie through their teeth like no other kind of disruption, even when they've voluntarily and prominently disclosed personal information that contradicts their claims. I really don't get it. But at least it sometimes manages to wrap around from demoralizing to entertaining. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Tamzin: What you say precisely echoes my thoughts. I have for years wondered why so many (though by no means all) unpaid editors prefer to lie, even when it has been made clear to them that doing so will lead to their being blocked, whereas if they tell the truth there's at least some chance of not being blocked. Some of them are out and out spammers, who work in a whole atmosphere of doing things clandestinely and hiding what they are doing, and maybe they just get programmed to work that way; many others, however, appear to set out with the intention of being open about who they are, including giving their real names, but then switch to dishonesty.
As for your comments about unblock requests, the substantial majority of requests should be declined, and I know full well that sometimes I give the benefit of the doubt when it isn't deserved. However, I think that is a much lesser mistake than almost never giving the benefit of the doubt even when it is deserved, which in my opinion is what a very clear majority of the administrators who regularly review unblock requests do. JBW (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Anytime I see an "actual innocence" unblock appeal for sockpuppetry, I try to tackle it, because it disappoints me to see them declined as "No you need to confess". Meanwhile I have a few times found actual innocence [1] [2], and other times at least found a basis for a ROPE unblock [3] [4]. Nosebagbear and I have talked a few times about the perverse incentive that, if you are actually innocent, you're better off lying and confessing (and there are a few cases where I'm convinced that's happened). One solution I've spitballed is that an actual-innocence sockblock appeal would go directly to a panel of 3 SPI admins, with the catch that any subsequent actual-innocence appeal must be directly to ArbCom. Which seems imperfect, but better than the current system. This is all just a subset of the overall problem with how unblocks work right now, but the one that bugs me the most, as an SPI clerk. I have more thoughts percolating about unblocking in general, as I reflect on having recently made my first entirely "adverse unblock" and having had that unanimously upheld by ArbCom, but no concrete ideas yet. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Tamzin. Sorry to butt in, but I notice you said you were having trouble with your emails going to spam. This is often caused by not having SPF and DKIM configured. Not sure how much effort you want to spend on it, but if you do, that'd be a good next step. Hope this helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Pinging Tamzin to alert her to Novem Linguae's potentially helpful message. JBW (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2023 (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. Notrealname1234 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Contributions by page blocked range 87.196.72.0/23

Hi! You blocked this user from several pages.. May I suggest that you add the pages that the user edited recently, Special:Contributions/87.196.72.0/23? 07:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Sjö (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sjö: Thanks for drawing this to my attention. Unfortunately it isn't possible to put a partial block on more than 10 pages, so I have made it into a total block. I had very much hoped to avoid doing so, to avoid risk of collateral damage, but there is so much of the disruptive editor's activity, and so little other editing in the IP range, that the benefit should far outweigh any possible damage. JBW (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Partial block of IP-hopping COVID denier?

Hi, JB. 2a00:23c7:e901:c001:ed9c:255f:ef3e:1188 & 2a00:23c7:e93b:2401:1052:c929:6b63:6f39 have a habit of violating WP:NOTFORUM at Talk:Vernon Coleman & Talk:Captain Tom Moore, although they haven't returned to the latter since April. Would it be possible to keep them away from those pages?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Wow! I don't think I have ever before seen a talk page with a history so dominated by NOTFORUM conspiracy nonsense as Talk:Vernon Coleman. Your suggested partial block makes some sense, but it would just be shutting out one IP range, while allowing the crap to continue through other IP addresses and SPAs. There may be a case for semi-protecting the page, though I generally prefer to avoid protection of talk pages. Also, at present I'm on my phone, which makes the kind of extensive checking of editing histories that I would ideally do before making a decision fiddly and awkward. For now, I'll provisionally make a partial range block, and hope to come back and review the situation some time when I'm on a computer. The situation at Talk:Captain Tom Moore doesn't seem to be anwhere near as bad, so I'll leave that for now, but again with the possibility of a reconsideration later. JBW (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: In fact I got called away before I had a chance to place the block, and I have only just got back to it. I have found that the same editor has been posting similar stuff at Talk:Vernon Coleman, using a number of IP addresses in the range 2A00:23C7:E900:0:0:0:0:0/40, since September 2021, so I have placed a partial block on that IP range for that article. However, there's only ever been one edit to Talk:Captain Tom Moore from that range, so, although that edit was unconstructive, I don't think there's any justification for taking any action, especially as the edit was not very recent. As always, though, that can be revised if more of the same happens. I have also looked at a smallish sample of the other edits from the same range, and didn't see anything particularly bad. JBW (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked editor still interacting

@JBW: Blocked editor User talk:Balaji Alavuthin is still interacting on their talk page. scope_creepTalk 16:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Scope creep: Yes, I saw that, and thought about it, but decided I didn't have anything new that I wanted to say. JBW (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday

I noticed that it's your wikibirthday today I hope it's a good one! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editor continues to disrupt

If you haven't already noticed, JeanCastì, who both you and Cullen328 previously blocked for "Persistent disruptive and uncooperative editing", continues the same behavior. Most recently, they've been using a WP:DUCK IP account,152.200.176.25, to edit and insult those that edit or revert their changes, via edit summaries.[5][6][7] Additionally, they're using it to instruct editors to "Leave Jean Casti alone." as the JeanCastì account has in the past.[8] This was brought up by myself and another user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations over a month ago but it seems to have slipped through the cracks and the behavior has continued since that initial filing. NJZombie (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328 for addressing this in the meantime! NJZombie (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Happy to be of assistance, NJZombie. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@NJZombie and Cullen328: I wonder how long it will be before the account's talk page access is revoked, or the IP block is extended, or both. JBW (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no need for further action at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Cullen328: No, nor do I, and I hope it will stay that way, but unfortunately I have no confidence that it will. However, if I'm proved wrong, that will be great. JBW (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Reach out to me at any time if this person's disruption resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Our friend from Turkey is back again

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=5.177.144.0%2F21&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: ...sigh... What kind of empty life must someone lead if they continue to need to do stuff like this for entertainment for years on end? It is very rare for me to make anything more than a very short block on so wide an IP range, but this time I see no problem in doing so. Most of the editing from this IP range has been clearly vandalism, all but one of the edits have been reverted, and the one exception was not particularly worthwhile. Of course the person will turn up on another range, but every little helps. JBW (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Architecture redirects

Why do admins delete entries for skyscrapers that could potentially blossom into a full sized masterpiece? That really frustrates me, I am a diehard skyscraper nerd and I have a passion for all things urban related and seeing a redlink for askyscraper that I consider a monument to human determination and inspiration is just a slap in the face, yah know what I mean? And mass deleting all my hard work just amplifies the bitch slap, if you don't mind. Jaiquiero (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jaiquiero: JBW (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) I have never, as far as I remember, heard of a "bitch slap", so I have no idea what it is supposed to mean, apart from a vague impression that it is probably intended to be offensive. JBW (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of a legitimate page.

Hey, you deleted 2023 Khar bombing while mass deleting User:Jaiquiero's pages. This is a legitimate page about a notable event and is currently on ITN. This has left a red link on the main page. Fix please? Sincerest well-wishes! Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've done undeleted this article and its talk page (and no others). I'm not familiar with the original user but if the article made it on the main page it probably had some level of review and/or legitimacy. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


You just deleted this page, and now there is a red link on the main page of Wikipedia. 109.38.139.34 (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


Thanks to both of you for pointing this out. I did check a fairly substantial sample of the pages before deleting, but there are so many of them that it is, unfortunately, impracticable to check every one. The article is now restored. JBW (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey, JBW,
I understand why you did the mass deletion of pages by the editor but next time, uncheck or skip any category pages that come up. Unless it is handled by the CFD bot, User:JJMC89 bot III, we don't delete category pages unless the categories are empty or have been emptied. This is because deleting category pages that have content leaves articles with red link categories on them which, according to WP:REDNO, we need to avoid. Thanks for tending to this problem and for leaving such a thoughtful explanatory note on the editor's talk page. I hope they pay some attention to the points you were making. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Liz. Thank you for your comments. I thought very carefully before doing the deletion, and checked a fairly substantial sample of them, to see how many, if any, legitimate pages would be deleted as collateral damage. In doing so, I did look out for certain types of pages that might not want to be deleted. Out of literally thousands of pages, I did not think I could check every one, but I checked enough to be confident that the number of pages I would delete that would be better kept would be a truly minute proportion. I judged that, in that situation, the benefit of going ahead with deleting almost all of the pages would vastly outweigh the disadvantages. As far as categories were concerned, I have now checked, and found that the vast majority of categories created by the editor had already been deleted by several administrators (including you, Liz) and the number of categories remaining was so small that I could in fact have easily checked them all, but at the time I didn't know that. With hindsight, perhaps I could have given higher priority to checking for categories, but category pages were only one of several categories of pages (!) which might have been worthy of special consideration, and it wasn't obvious to me that categories should have been singled out above all others. In fact, as it turned out, I think there were just two categories which were not empty, and which you have now restored, and two which were empty, but which when I checked back I decided are potentially useful, so I have restored them. Please feel welcome to correct me if I am wrong about those statistics, but if they are anywhere close to being correct then, while any collateral damage is of course undesirable, it's a damage rate which is bearable.
I am sincerely grateful to you for your comments: even though what I have said above is somewhat opposed to the opinion you expressed, I have thought seriously about what you said, and having done so I do think that I could have done better. Even when you are being critical of what I do, which happens from time to time, your opinions are always reasonable and worthy of consideration. You advised me what to do "next time", and if there ever is a next time I will certainly consider the question of categories. (However, I have never had a previous time for anywhere remotely near to such a large scale deletion, and it is much more likely than not that there won't be another one. For smaller scale mass deletions obviously it is much easier to check all pages for any which should be kept.) JBW (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: Postscript: I have just seen that the two categories for which which I self-reverted my deletion have now been nominated for speedy deletion by Explicit. JBW (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Request undeletion

Hi, could you please undelete Category:Singers from New Orleans? It appears to be a valid category with a number of articles added to it. Uhai (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Uhai:  Done Thanks for pointing it out to me. JBW (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Direct copies of 100-year-old text?

Hey, JB, where does Wikipedia stand on direct copies of 100-year-old text? I ask because I just reverted nearly 9000 bytes of copied text at Great Peacemaker.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: As far as copyright is concerned, my guess is that there would be no problem, but I don't definitely know. However, there are several other reasons why the text you removed was totally unsuitable for a Wikipedia article, including the inappropriate tone and style, doubtful (to put it mildly) reliability of the sources, and stating as facts things which can only be opinions. To consider just this one sentence: "Now strangely this virgin conceived and her mother knew that she was about to bear a child." "Strangely"? That is an expression of opinion, not an objective fact. Also, compare that quote with the article Christianity, which says "According to the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born from the Virgin Mary"; it does not state it as a fact. (My italics.) In my opinion you were 100% right to revert, though probably not for copyright reasons. JBW (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Bravo

This was the most elegant unblock decline I've ever read. Thorough, specific, detailed...I don't see how it can be possible for the blocked editor to read that and not get it (although my jaded self is sure they'll find a way to misread it). You put a lot of research time into compiling that response, great job! Schazjmd (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Thanks. I did wonder whether I was wasting my time, and a quick one or two sentence decline would have been better, but knowing that at least one editor appreciated my effort makes it seem worthwhile. JBW (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

DO NOT THINK IT WAS MY MISTAKE

To clear any doubt I just want say that I moved page List of Missions to the Moon to revert a vandalism move made by another editor and I was unable to restore original name so I was forced to change it to List of Missions to Moon. I have share this to you to clear any your doubt about me. Mr Unknown23 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Unknown233: Yes, I did see that you were trying to revert a vandalism move by someone else, but thanks for explaining anyway. I suppose it might have been better for me to give a longer edit summary, making it clear that I wasn't blaming you, which I suppose is what it looked like. For future reference, if you can't move a page then you can ask for an administrator to do so. This time probably the best would have been to make the move which you did make, and then ask for an administrator to move back to the original title. Anyway, thanks for what you did, which was certainly much better than leaving it where it was. 🙂 JBW (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you. I always feel a certain affection for that first edit. Just removing an apostrophe that shouldn't have been there, and at the time I did not expect to ever do anything more significant than that on Wikipedia. I think that if anyone had suggested it was the first step to a Wikipedia career in which I would make a six figure number of edits and become one of the project's more active administrators, I would have thought they were crazy. JBW (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Hodan Said Isse

Hi, I have added two primary source links from JSTOR Dr. Hodan Isse is an educated and a role model woman. Please feel free to publish her article in the mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QalasQalas (talk • contribs) 13:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The submissions of the draft were not declined because of a lack of sourcing; they were declined because the draft has a promotional tone, and you have done nothing to address that concern. JBW (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

So.

What do you think? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Interesting that you should ask. I have looked at it several times myself, and was undecided. As you know, I am a great believer in giving second chances to editors who say they won't do the same things again, but this one doesn't entirely convince me. The editor has moved a long way away from the arrogant and unconstructive approach of the first appeals, but there is still no recognition of the problems which led to the block: we get "I will not do all the things I was accused of", not "I will not do all the things I did". However, there are many people who really find it difficult to admit that they have been wrong, even when they know it, and perhaps "... will reform from what I have done" from this person means a lot. I think I will ask for a little clarification, in the hope that they will provide enough justification for an unblock. JBW (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra:  Done JBW (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew I could count on your reasoning. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes! You nailed it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Jaiquiro

By the way, are you aware that Jaiquiero is accusing you of abusing [your] admin privileges and asking to file a block request? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I told em the next step is to ask that an unblock request be carried to WP:AN -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Indian Premier Handball League

Hello. You deleted the redirect Indian Premier Handball League because the redirect target Premier Handball League(India) was deleted. However it was only deleted because it was misspelled so can you please undelete Indian Premier Handball League and just change the redirect target to Premier Handball League (India)? Jonteemil (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done casualdejekyll 23:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: As you can see above Casualdejekyll has done it. You could in fact have done it yourself. JBW (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I prefer deleted pages be undeleted rather than recreated but now it's done so not much to do. Jonteemil (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: In many cases I too prefer pages to be undeleted rather than recreated, and if Casualdejekyll hadn't got there before me I would have done that, but I thought that undeleting it just to restore a redirect with a typing mistake wasn't particularly worth bothering about. However, since you have indicated that you would prefer it that way, I have now undeleted it. JBW (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
to restore a redirect with a typing mistake wasn't particularly worth bothering about - I agree but I'm quite principled. Thanks. Jonteemil (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #77397

has a reply. FWIW. I recuse. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I won't stand in anyone's way, but I think unblocking would be a mistake. No longer objective. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: I've closed the appeal; I'll give you one guess which way. I think the only questionable thing was whether I was being stupid bothering to write out an explanation to the editor, rather than just giving a one-click boilerplate answer. JBW (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Your written out explanations are always better than boiler plate. You actually think about what you are writing. Thanks for handling that problem. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Yes, I like to think so, and it's encouraging when I occasionally get messages indicating that at least some people appreciate my efforts. Thank you for being one of those people. However, sometimes we reach the point where numerous attempts have been made to help an editor by explaining things to them, and all we have had back from them is IDHT IDHT IDHT... and there's no longer any point thinking about what to say to them, because it's obvious they aren't going to take any notice of it anyway. I think we had already reached that point with this editor. However, I often can't stop myself: I am programmed to always think about everything, whether there's any point in doing so or not. JBW (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Welp, I appreciate it. I done my bit (twice). Now it's someone else's turn UTRS appeal #77629 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Well, if they are lucky they will find someone more generous to blocked editors than both you and I are... JBW (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Accident

I apologize for the speedy deletion of a user talk page sent to your talk. I've removed it for now. Toadette (chat)/(logs) 06:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Toadette: Nothing to worry about. Occasionally, maybe once every few years, I get messages like that, and I tend to find it slightly amusing. I once got accidentally blocked instead of another editor. JBW (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Sihang Warehouse Issues

Hello JBW, seeing as the other user involved with the disputes on the article has already reached out to you on your talk page, I figured I would provide my side as well.

@KresyRise has been consistently asserting a Japanese Order of Battle that is not supported by the citations they are using. As their last changes largely returned to article to a problematic state, I reverted it.

The first source [1] they used for Japanese strength/OOB, stating the IJA 3rd DIvision was involved was "Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai. Exisle Publishing." with no page provided. I had already read through this work earlier in the month to investigate and followed up with KresyRise, stating on the talk page "Stephen Robinson does claim in his work "Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai" that the IJA 3rd Division was involved in the assault on Sihang Warehouse but does not provide proper citations for the passages where he wrote such claims."

The second is the figure for 20,000 Japanese soldiers involved. There were two sources provided [4][5], the first being "Hattori, Satoshi; Dera, Edward J. (2013). Japanese Operations from July to December 1937, The Battle for China. Stanford University Press. p. 173" and the second once again "Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai. Exisle Publishing." with no page provided. [4] does not make mention of the Japanese strength at Sihang Warehouse on page 173, nor does the entire chapter. In fact the entire work does not include figures for this, only briefly mentioning Sihang Warehouse in a chapter by a different author and with no clear mention of the Japanese OOB nor strength.

Further down the article in the "Imperial Japanese Forces" they once again cite "Hattori, Satoshi; Dera, Edward J. (2013). Japanese Operations from July to December 1937, The Battle for China. Stanford University Press. p. 173" for the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division. While this citation is not only irrelevant, providing only the divisions strength with no information pertaining to Sihang Warehouse in the page or chapter, it actually directly contradicts the user's contributions as the chapter clearly explains how IJA 3rd and 9th Divisions were outside of the Shanghai during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse. The IJA 9th Division is also included, with "Rodriguez, RL. Journey to the East. p. 219" cited. While no ISBN is provided, I was able to locate this work on OhioLink. Page 219 makes no reference to the IJA 9th Division or Sihang Warehouse. In fact only one reference to the IJA 9th Division appears when searching the entire work, shown on page 133 and it concerns the IJA 9th Division five years earlier in the January 28th Incident. This work does cover the Battle of Shanghai from pages 257 to 262 and provides an estimate of 300,000 Japanese forces involved in the battle, but makes no mention of the Japanese forces involved nor strength at Sihang Warehouse. In fact Sihang Warehouse is not mentioned at all.

The final citation for this section was "Yuanliang, Sun (2002). A Moment in a Billion Years, 8/13 battle of songhu (in Chinese). Shanghai: chinese academy of social sciences. p. 120." but there is no ISBN or Chinese language title provided, so I was unable locate this work and analyze it.

I'm not sure how repeated inclusion of false citations is treated on Wikipedia. I assume the policy would be to assume good faith, but there comes a point where one has to question if such a degree of contributions are made with malice.

It should also be noted that the user asserts the involvement of Japanese "Marine units" but the Imperial Japanese Navy had disbanded their marine corps in 1876. From then onwards until the fall of the Japanese Empire, they only fielded "Naval Landing Forces" which were naval personnel assigned to shore duty or infantry units. There was no actual marine branch from 1876-1945.

Now in regards to original research on my part, I am aware of this policy. There is no analysis or interoperation drawn from my contributions are far as I can see, the issue is that I am relying heavily on primary Japanese-language sources. I am simply translating them to English, but I think ideally other Japanese speaking users should be verifying this as well. I have cited all of my sources in an accessible way so others can check the validity of my contributions.

Another point I would like to add, is that both the Japanese and Chinese versions of the article say the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force 10th Battalion was involved and do not mention the IJA. It seems the Japanese OOB is only controversial in the western world where scholarship on the subject is still lacking.

Anyways, thank you for reading through all of this. I am sure it is quite annoying and I apologize for such a long topic. I am aware my behavior has not been exemplary but I am trying my best to abide 100% by Wikipedia policies and my contributions are made with a genuine passion for correctly retelling history, not malice or nationalism. I think the Chinese military put up an excellent fight against the Japanese forces in Shanghai, especially during the early stages of the battle. I am just getting very dissatisfied with constant efforts of a certain user to alter the article with false citations for reasons I can only wish to understand.

Best Regards,

Adachi Adachi1939 (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

More Disruptive Behavior

Hi JBW, I just posted this here in case you missed it on my personal page; I just wanted to inform you of user Adachi1939's continued disruptive behavior from the previous few months, which have recently picked up every since he was unblocked, several of which are targeted specifically towards me.

My most recent edits on the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Page were indiscriminately undone by Adachi on the grounds of "false citations," (something that seems strange given that half my edits were simply reformatting sentences), an action that I don't think Adachi won't be stopping given his previous edit war. When I requested on Adachi's talk page that he not indiscriminately delete and revert my edits as he had in his four-month edit war, he accused me of "fabricating history," of being not familiar with the subject at hand, and (probably mockingly) asking if I was "familiar with the English language" (I am an American). In addition, Adachi has been replacing entire sections from the page with his personal novel synthesis of events, an issue multiple users (which can be found in the talk page) have pointed out, as many of Adachi's edits consist primarily of original research in violation of wikipedia's no research policy. However, Adachi1939 has consistently ignored outside feedback and presented a novel synthesis without secondary sources as fact, and even removed my tags denoting the sections as original research, which I find strange.

The fact that Adachi wrote an article about me personally on his talk page that admin Drmies deleted for "inappropriate content," combined with his very rude manner towards my request that he be more civil suggests that Adachi1939 has a personal issue with me in addition to his disruptive editing. All in all, I just want to inform you that Adachi1939 doesn't seem to be respecting wikipedia's guidelines and rules, given his behavior on the talk pages (my personal page and the DOSH page), indiscriminate undoing and deletion of opposing perspectives, and rather hostile attitude towards me personally.

Thanks. KresyRise (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@KresyRise: Sorry I haven't responded to your pings. I am concerned about the problem, but I'm not sure what to do about it, so I have procrastinated. I will try to get back to this tomorrow, as I don't think I can deal with it properly now. If you don't hear from me again within 24 hours then please feel welcome to prompt me again. JBW (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi JBW, thanks for responding to my message.
I just wanted to follow up having seen that Adachi has posted on your talk page.
I just want to clarify that I'm not here because I seek to dominate a dispute, but because every one of my attempts of communication or cooperation with Adachi1939 on the page's contents has ended in him arguing with me, overriding my edits (with his reasoning that they're all "false citations) or downright insulting me. KresyRise (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Jpgroppi

Hi, RE the autobio warning you posted at User talk:Jpgroppi, just to say that apparently they are the widow of the person in question, per their comments at the AfC HD. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Double. Thanks for pointing that out. I've replaced my message about autobiographies by a fairly short message about COI. JBW (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I get the feeling she's finding the whole process a bit daunting, and already came pretty close to being blocked at one point, but Timtrent is very patiently working with her and making some progress now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing I may've come to the end of my ability to help. But she has to do some things by herself. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Pandorina kutija

Hello, back on July 24 you protected the article Pandorina kutija due to vandalism. That protection expired yesterday and the article was quickly vandalized again. (I fixed the latest desecration.) Might want to consider further action. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: Thanks for letting me know. By the time I saw your message, the article had been protected for 3 months, and I have also partially blocked the IP ranges concerned from the article for 6 months. JBW (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet another Turkish IP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.177.156.179   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sungai Kolok fireworks disaster

Hi. You deleted Sungai Kolok fireworks disaster on 10 August as part of a Mass deletion of pages added by Jaiquiero. I don't remember this one to be particularly problematic, though. Could you check to see if it's worth rescuing? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012: I agree, so I have restored the article. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. JBW (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Help Formatting

Hi JBW, Can you please help formatting Tanjay National High School under its programs below so that it is easy to click not directly visible. Thank you 158.62.51.19 (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. You may have in mind the fact that in "mobile view" the links to the individual articles are not visible, and you have to click on section headings. If so, I agree that it's unhelpful, but that's the stupid way that the "mobile view" works. Personally I never use the idiotic "mobile view", but unfortunately most readers of Wikipedia don't know that it's possible to disable it. (You just have to click on the "Desktop" link at the bottom of the page.) If that is not what you meant then perhaps you can explain what you did mean in a little more detail.
I'll have at how the page would look, both viewed properly and in stupid "mobile view", if it were all formatted as one section, and consider whether making that change would be a good idea. However, I am very reluctant to format a page in such a way that looking at it properly is made worse just for the sake of lessening the effect of one of the glaring design faults in "mobile view". JBW (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


When I checked the page more thoroughly I found that one of the sections consisted entirely of links to articles which don't have any information about this school, so I removed them. I then tried to check how removing the section heading from the next section would affect the appearance of the article. What I found was that, as far as I could make out, there is no way of seeing a preview of how an edit will affect the way a page will look in "mobile view". If anyone reading this knows of a way to do so, then I'll be very grateful if will they tell me, but as far as I can see you just have to make the edit and hope for the best, which is one of the very stupidest design features in a system full of stupid design features. (By the way, just in case you didn't realise, I don't altogether like the "mobile view" interface of Wikipedia.) Anyway, I went ahead with removing the section formatting. In my opinion that makes the article much better in mobile view and not significantly worse in desktop view, so I'm happy with the change. If that has dealt with the problem you had in mind, then good; if not, then once again you may like to explain in more detail what you do have in mind. 🙂 JBW (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Will this LTA ever run out of IPs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.90.198.4   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: To keep on finding so many new ones, they must be really dedicated to the task of trolling. Wouldn't it be great if one day it occurred to them that it might be even more enjoyable to put the same amount of dedication into constructive editing instead? JBW (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

rejecting Gobela‎

Hi, I see you have rejected my request to delete Gobela‎. The word means teacher or mentor in Xhosa, but after I created the redirect to Ukuthwasa, I found it was left as redlink to a Gobela‎ river in Spain, see wikidata [here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3026801]. hence, the previous redlinks for the river know redirect to the Ukuthwasa. I think it was my error for making redirect before checking and I hope you can delete the redirect. Cheers FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma: If someone comes looking for the river, they won't find it, because there is no article about it on English Wikipedia. That will remain true whether we keep or delete the present redirect. If, on the other hand, someone comes looking for the word in the other meaning, if we keep the redirect they will find it, if we delete the redirect they won't. So deleting the redirect will make no difference to people in the first case, and make things less helpful to people in the second case. Why will that be an improvement to the encyclopaedia? JBW (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Lol that sounded deep and confusing .. anyway, I will then just redirect the river FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

was the block for user IP 100:35.163.141 for erasing blank talk pages for other users? If yes, please let me know for I was debating about whether or not to warn the user for that possible offense.

thanks,

Megabits13 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


for reference, the link to the talk page is: 100.35.163.141 Megabits13 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Megabits13: Mostly it was unexplained removal of content from other editors' talk pages, yes, but I also took into account the fact that most if not all of the few other edits were also unconstructive in various ways. JBW (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I’ll keep watch for that also.
Megabits13 (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok 23.186.80.194 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You deleted my draft at Draft:Purgatory (Arrow) over a copy right violation. Which line of text violated copy right. I have never heard of this website and all of that text in that draft was written by me. OLI 21:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: In order to help me to provide a full and accurate answer to that query, please provide the answers to these two questions:
  1. Have you previously edited Wikipedia using any other account?
  2. Have you previously posted that material, which you tell me you wrote yourself, anywhere else, other than in this Wikipedia draft? JBW (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
    1. No
    2. No OLI 21:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
    @JBW, this is interesting because there are a few conversations about OLI (their talk page, ANI and AfC), regarding their AfC reviews and your comments brings up some other potential issues. Pinging @Primefac just so they are aware. S0091 (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
    This is a false positive it has do with with the description of the show. Same discription used on various other episode pages for Arrow. OLI 21:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
    I belive this a false postive becuase the discription, "revolving around billionaire playboy Oliver Queen as he returns to Starling City (later renamed Star City), after having been shipwrecked for five years, and becomes a bow-wielding, hooded vigilante who sets out to fight crime and corruption" something like this appears on several Arrow pages as well as the article which supposedly was stolen from. OLI 21:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant: OK, then you are plain outright lying. A substantial part of the text which you claim to have written yourself was published before you posted it into this Wikipedia draft. There are two possibilities, one or more of which must apply: (1) you have previously published the text in question, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere, and/or (2) someone else previously posted the text, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere, and you copied it. Please tell me honestly and straightforwardly which of those is true (either one of them or both of them). If you wish to be allowed to continue to edit Wikipedia then you need to answer that request for clarification. JBW (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Which part of the text? OLI 21:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
The plot description? I believe that was attributed to the season article. OLI 21:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Whether the text in question "appears on several Arrow pages" is totally irrelevant. You have claimed that you wrote the text yourself, and did not post it anywhere before doing so in the Wikipedia draft in question, but the text existed before you posted it in that draft, so you are lying. Either someone else wrote it before you posted it in this Wikipedia draft, or you wrote it and posted it elsewhere before you you posted it in this Wikipedia draft. JBW (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I wrote something like that because of the Arrow episodes have text along those lines. I promise you I didnt steal anything for the article. OLI 21:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I am out of time, and will not be able to return to this for at least 9 hours, but before I go I will just give you the following comments. I am not talking about "something like that" or "text along those lines"; I am talking about a couple of paragraphs of text which are word for word identical. At first it seemed much more likely than not that you were a blocked editor using a sockpuppet account to evade a block, but, while that is still possible, I now think it is also possible that you may be a genuine new editor and you simply don't know what you are doing. However, whichever way it is, the very simple fact remains that you have claimed to have written text yourself, not copied it from elsewhere, and that you had not posted it anywhere before you posted it in the draft in question, and yet that text existed, and was published on the internet, before you created the draft. There are several possibilities, including that you may have honestly thought it was acceptable to post material you had copied from some other internet site, but the claim that you wrote the material yourself and had not previously posted it elsewhere is not one of those possibilities. That is simply not true. If we accept your statement that you had not previously posted the text anywhere, the draft which you created contained material which you copied from somewhere else and it is not going to be restored. (I neither know nor care where you copied it from; the URL that I gave is simply there to show that the text previously existed, whether you copied it from there or from somewhere else.) You have two options: either accept the fact that the draft in which you posted copyright infringing material will not be restored, drop the matter, and move on, or else persist with your lies and be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Fine I copied one line from another article on Wikipedia which multiple other articles also used. OLI 22:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Isn't Wikipedia public domain? OLI 22:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the link given in the G12 deletion, it appears the site copied its text from the lead of the wikipedia article Arrow (season 8), making this a backwards copy of sorts, and why it appeared as a potential (but incorrect) G12 (if this was the copied text in question). Aidan9382 (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Except I didn't take the second part, only the first part from Welcome to Hong Kong as it's used on basicly every arrowverse episode OLI 23:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
No. Its cc by sa 4, and requires attribution to reuse. Please see WP:CWW. The attribution can be written in the edit summary. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Which I did attribute the plot summary to the article therefore it's not a violation OLI 23:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any attribution in the deleted edit summaries. But you also clearly stated you were taking over a draft with copying issues. Hmmm. I better take a closer look at this when I'm at a desktop computer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I recall writing something like "I have taken the plot details from the season article" OLI 04:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Additionally if I did forget to attribute the text, I hardly think that constitutes a deletion of a draft. Also @JBW: I belive here you repeating the same line over and over, including the line "persist with your lies and be blocked from editing". I wasnt lying I was including the one line shared by the vast majority of articles on the subject. If I didnt attribute the text, it would be increddibly easy to retroachively meantion "hey I copied over this text which I then altered further". If this couldnt satisfy you could remove the one line. OLI 05:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@OlifanofmrTennant: I don't know what you mean by "one line", but you copied a passage of 162 words. Now that I have been told where you copied the text from, it has been very easy for me to check, and confirm that the other website had copied the material from Wikipedia, so I have restored the draft, with attribution. I could have, and would have, done that right away if you had just said in the first place where you copied the material from, instead of repeatedly claiming that you had written the text yourself, and hadn't copied any of it from anywhere. I have no idea what you thought you would gain by doing that, but all you have done is waste time for you, for me, and for everyone who has posted above, over something which could easily have been dealt with in two minutes. JBW (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Your question about removal of refs from a mathematical article

I am not entirely sure about the editor upon whose talk page you placed the question. I have been monitoring them on and off for a day or two. I am wondering whether it is a CIR issue or, looking at their user page under Accounts, something deeper. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Yes, I have had very similar thoughts. I have wondered about asking about the other accounts, but I'm not sure. I have a feeling that there may be no such accounts, it all being a fantasy. Looking at that account's editing in conjunction with this, I get the impression that it's a couple of kids playing at being Wikipedia editors, but it's probably worth watching them. JBW (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I've followed them to Commons and asked for permissions on all of their uploads. I am not at all sure the airline article can ever come to anything. Must correct my spelling of "their'! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I hadn't thought of checking the images in the article, but of course I should have done: it's obvious. I don't believe for a moment that it's their "own work". (I didn't even notice "there", which is slightly surprising, because things like that commonly absolutely jar on me. If it's any consolation to you, I quite often catch myself doing that one, for some reason, even though I don't tend to fall into various other common holes, such as it's/its, etc.) JBW (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I often suspect Autocarrot!
And now we have both found the big sister. I am back to CIR for both. It appears that we are their playground.
And I thought it was our playground! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Aah, but I've got a more powerful toy to play with than they have! Just let them see...
I didn't know the word "autocarrot", but now I do. It's a good one. Never too old to learn. And yes, earlier today I found a weird mistake in one of my edits which I could only attribute to autocarrot (as I now know to call it) or else Alzheimer's. JBW (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Alzheimers needs a different spelling. "Old Timers" suits it far better.
It's a little like "The Fat Toad Standard" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Oh come on now, at least "autocarrot" was easy to find, but neither Google nor Wikipedia came up with anything to help me with "The Fat Toad Standard" give me a clue... JBW (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
De facto standard
Now, how about "Sparrow's Legs Error"? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Come to think of it, can anything that neither Google nor Wikipedia knows about be considered to actually exist? JBW (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Bizarrely I can be found in Google. Thus I am a figment. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Yes, in fact some years ago I found you on Google and thought of reading your book, but I didn't get round to it, and had forgotten about it until just now. I'm easy enough to find on google if you know what computer programming language I once wrote a guide to, but it was always a pretty obscure language, and is now largely forgotten, so the likelihood of anyone stumbling on me by accident is close to nil. How much of a figment does that make me?
Once, a long time ago, I heard Frank Muir on the radio, relating an account of a little girl who wanted to know why we were all supposed to send plums to the king. When asked for clarification, she said "You know, like it says in the song". Eventually it turned out that she was referring to the song which says "send him Victorias". And that was long before all these electronic gadgets that are responsible for autocarrot and the like: good old fashioned low-tech human hearing is perfectly capable of doing the job. JBW (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I adore(d) Frank Muir. Somehow far better than Denis Norden.
I suspect it was not as obscure a language as RPL11M. I spent a hectic few months cutting code in that
The book helped me to get rid of a lifetime's obsession. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Timtrent: No, I think it was probably nowhere near that obscure. And I'm afraid I was more of a Nordenite, so perhaps I should start looking for pretexts to block you, out of sheer revenge... JBW (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Now which of them gave the definition of the CELLO as an acronym for a violin too large to get under the chin - the Cremona Extra Large Leg Over?
RPL11M wasn't just a language om PDP11s, it was the registration number of the MD of the vendors car, a very pretentious Jag. (I was young and impressionable, rather than just plain weird as I am now) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Fiddle Faddle: I've just tried Googling the name of the computer language in question. I came up on the seventh hit, which surprised me, as it was decades ago that I wrote the guide, and in any case it was only a supplement to an existing manual, not a free-standing work. I don't seem to be fading away as fast as I thought... JBW (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Google has a long memory! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Ownership approach on Sihang Warehouse Page

I just want to give you a final heads on the user Adachi1939, who seems to be pursuing an ownership approach on the Sihang Warehouse page.

Virtually every single edit I've made since he restarted editing the page has been undone on the grounds of "false citations," (including spelling and sentence reformatting), usually accompanied by ad hominem attacks and insults in the talk page or edit history. The fact that Adachi usually undoes my edits only hours after they're made after suggests a very possessive attitude, and the heavy presence of original research and lack of neutrality in his edits makes that a chronic issue.

I don't have the time or desire to edit war over one article, and I'm also tired of seeing angry demands and insults from him in my notifications every time I login. While I've muted him at this point, I suspect this treatment won't stop with me, given he has acted this way with other users who have disagreed with him on the page before (check his talk page for more details).

I just figured I should give you a final heads up on this situation. I don't want any other prospective editors to be spurned by Adachi's surveillance and attitude towards the article's content. KresyRise (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Mail notification!

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.

Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 03:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

november edits.

all entries to days of the year must have a inline citation as stated in WP:DOYCITE Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300::
  1. Then why have you left hundreds of entries without inline citations? What was different about the one you selected for removal?
    Since the entry linked to an article giving a citation to a source, wouldn't it have been more constructive to have copied it to the entry, instead of removing it?
    Capitals?
    I could go on, but maybe that's enough. JBW (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    The answer is that idontknownmyusernmameistoofuckinglongandannoyingtotype and a couple other people think they can abuse this policy to pointlessly delete names lazily rather than taking 5 seconds for a bit of diligence since a source will be right there and easily copied from the linked biography. I guess it boosts their edit counts since apparently that's something people with really long and stupid usernames care about.
    It's really just disruptive, to annoy people like you and me who have to figure out where they cut the information and what was cut and then clean up their messes. 76.143.192.237 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    No, it just makes it easier for the people who are trying to go through the days of the year and add citations. It gives them less work. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

2406:2d40 disrupting Sky News Australia

Hi, JB. They've been doing this periodically since at least 19 July; would it be possible to put a partial block on them?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68:  Done 2406:2D40:4000:0:0:0:0:0/36 blocked from the article for 6 months. JBW (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Gabriel Vicéns

Hi there JBW,

My apologies but I cannot understand what you mean by No valid speedy deletion criterion has been provided? The article is about a "pseudo musician" with crosswiki spam history who has done nothing and whose relevance is zero. There was speed delete request here vandalized here due to removal of template, a vote here that did not reach consensus due to nullity as you may consult and several complaints from nl.wiki, es.wiki and others. How am I supposed (as an es:wiki sysop) to come to warn u about that? Saloca (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Saloca, and thank you for expressing your concerns. I will try to clarify the various issues involved, in the hope that doing so will be helpful to you.
English Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion are listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. They include, for example, an article having no meaningful content, or being unambiguously promotional, or infringing copyright, and so on. Your speedy deletion nomination did not mention any of those criteria: that is what I meant by saying that no valid speedy deletion criterion had been provided. I have no idea how you deal with deletion nominations on Spanish Wikipedia, but the policy on English Wikipedia is that if a page does not satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria then it isn't speedily deleted.
In fact, although the failure to mention any of the speedy deletion criteria was sufficient grounds for declining the nomination, before doing so I investigated to see whether there was any other basis for deletion in what you said. The reason you gave for deletion was "It was passed on en:wiki by consultation and was maintained when no consensus was reached. They've dedicated to replicating it in several Wikis with different users and the same text." Quite apart from the fact that there is certainly no mention there of any of the speedy deletion criteria, it it so incoherent that I was not absolutely sure what it was intended to mean. What does "was passed on en:wiki by consultation" mean? Judging from the mention immediately after that of "no consensus", my guess was that you probably meant that it was subjected to a deletion discussion. Your second sentence must, I thought, be intended to mean that a group of different accounts, presumably connected, have tried to post the same article to several different wikis. Assuming those interpretations are correct, the fact that a deletion discussion failed to reach consensus to delete a page, far from being a reason for deletion (speedy or otherwise) is a reason not to delete. What happens on other wikis is totally irrelevant: in many cases other Wikipedias have significantly different policies from English Wikipedia. Consequently, although I gave the failure to provide one of the speedy deletion criteria as reason for declining the nomination, in fact no valid reason at all had been given for deletion, whether compliant with the speedy deletion policy or not.
A further point worth mentioning is that a page which has survived a deletion discussion is then not able to be speedily deleted. Therefore even if you had cited one of the speedy deletion criteria, it is unlikely that the article could have been deleted. (There are a few exceptions, such as copyright infringements, but none of them applies in this case; or at least you have given no indication that any of them applies, and I can't see any that does.)
That is how things stood when I declined the speedy deletion request. Your message above appears to confirm my understanding of what you wrote in that request, and you have also introduced another point. What you refer to as a "speed delete request" which was "vandalized" was a proposed deletion, commonly abbreviated to "PROD". Policy is that a PROD is only for a deletion which is totally uncontroversial, with no objection from anyone. If anyone does object, for whatever reason, then they are perfectly free to remove the proposal, and doing so is therefore not vandalism.
If you think there are good reasons why the article should be deleted then you may like to take it to a second discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. However, to stand any chance of success you will need to give a much better reason for deletion than you have.
If you find the range of different deletion mechanisms on English Wikipedia, and the variety of different policies for them, confusing, then the best I can say is that you are not alone: so did I when I was new to English Wikipedia, and so do many new editors. JBW (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

National Logistics Corporation, Pakistan

Dear,
Trust this message finds you doing well. I am Usama Naeem, SEO Officer official representative of NLC digital profiles.
I am writing to appeal for the change of the name of Wikipedia page of NLC from "National Logistics Cell" to "National Logistics Corporation".
Senate of Pakistan has passed the National Logistics Corporation Bill, on August 8 2023, which will establish the National Logistics Corporation as a statutory body. This is a major milestone in the development of the logistics sector in Pakistan, and it is important that our Digital profiles page reflects this new reality. Below is the references of official document by Govt of Pakistan.
References:
1.    Senate passes National Logistics Corporation Bill, 2023
a.    https://www.brecorder.com/news/40256369
2.    By THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLYI –
a.    https://na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/64cbc6fce4c55_419.pdf
3.    Senate of Pakistan – establishment of National Logistics Corporation
a.    https://senate.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1691475834_270.pdf
4.    President approves National Logistic Corporation Bill
a.    https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/745482-President-approves-National-Logistic-Corporation-Bill
5.    NLC Website
a.    https://www.nlc.com.pk/about-us/index.php
Regards,
Usama Naeem, SEO Officer, HQ NLC Usamanaeem31 (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Usamanaeem31:  Done JBW (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Usamanaeem31 (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

ygm

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.

--Yamla (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Undid your reversion of Antenna tuner

I've restored the phonetic spelling "axēs" in the Antenna tuner article: It distinguishes axes = more often encountered plural of "ax", from axes = rarely seen plural of "axis", without requiring the reader to take a moment's thought to work out the context. Note that the same article uses "rounded ax head" to explain the name of the shape "half-labrys", and nowhere else brings up the word "axis".
107.122.85.9 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What justification in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to you have for disagreeing with the reason I explained to you for reverting to standard English spelling? JBW (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

email

Walsh is the name . . . L,L,Leo Walsh. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Star Trek deficiency syndrome. The only sure is to watch that episode ASAP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Hmm. I'm not sure what to make of someone who encourages me to watch episodes of the first Star Trek series. Later series were amusing but not profound, but the first series... well, OK, I suppose I must have got some entertainment value out of them, otherwise I wouldn't have watched them, but actually encouraging me to go back to them... well... JBW (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
In my colonel Kurz voice-- The plot holes gasp the plot hole. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: OK, I have now watched it. I confess it wasn't actually anywhere near as as bad as I remember those early ones being. Is it just because, as I get older, I get less critical? However, I still have absolutely no idea whatsoever why you mentioned it, or what relvance it's supposed to have to anything. Am I just being stupid or something??? 🤨 JBW (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
One of the girls calls Harry by his real name. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, now I see.💡! But was I really supposed to work that out for myself??? Really??? JBW (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
His nom de voyage, as it were, was Leo Walsh. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Meh. I know some of the dialogue by heart. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Also, as far as I know, Deepfriedokra, Harry didn't go round leaving cryptic but easily deciphered clues as to what his real name was. But maybe he did. JBW (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
And there was only one Harry, Deepfriedokra. Two people independently trying to conceal the same real name would be just too much of a coincidence. No, couldn't happen in real life. JBW (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
...and if you are such an expert on that episode, then why did you allow inaccurate information about it to languish in the Wikipedia article on it for almost 5 years, until I came along and cleared it up? JBW (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Never looked at the article. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suppose you wouldn't need to, if you know it by heart, Deepfriedokra, would you? JBW (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
In my Spock voice, "I would not." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You are involved in encouraging incompetent editors to engage in edit warring

Regarding the page Cartesian coordinate system, it is apparent that neither you nor the other editor, User:D.Lazard, has a proper background in mathematics. It has been proved analytically, using the concept of isomorphism, that a number line and an axis are two different names for the same thing.

The analytical explanation was far beyond the level of your mathematical ability. For this reason, I also used a geometrical explanation, which is easily understood by even a pupil who encounters number lines and coordinate systems at school for the first time.

You are the one involved in disruptive editing by assisting User:D.Lazard, who is participating in a Wikipedia:edit war. He claims to be a renowned mathematician on the page, Daniel_Lazard, and yet is unable to understand the basics of mathematics.

You will be reported as a person who does not have the merit to be a wikipedia dministrator. Persianwise (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Persianwise: There is probably no point in spending more time on this, but here is my very last ever attempt to make the mathematical issue concerned clearer to you. The additive group of the even integers is isomorphic to the additive group of multiples 17. That does not mean that the even integers and the multiples of 17 are the same thing; it just means that as far as their additive properties are concerned they have the same structure; in other ways they are quite different. The same applies to other mathematical objects which are isomorphic: they are the same in those respects which concern their properties in relation to the category in which they are isomorphic, but they may be very different in other respects. You have evidently come across a statement to the effect that isomorphic objects are the same, which is a kind of informal description very commonly presented to people being introduced to the concept at an elementary level, to help give them an overall feel for what the concept is about, and you have misunderstood that informal description as being a rigorous mathematical fact. The fact that people with a knowledge of mathematics at a far higher level than your own elementary knowledge of the subject have tried to help you clear up that misunderstanding evidently has had no effect, and I post this one last attempt to help in hope, rather than in expectation, that it will be more successful. JBW (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like a job for WP:dispute resolution, WP:30, discussion among Wikiproject members. That sort of thing.
Personally, I don't respond well to threats. To bullying. One might be an expert in any given field, but on Wikipedia one must be able to function collaboratively and without insults or threats. I'd suggest, @Persianwise: that you consider your behavior in the context of WP:CIVIL. Regardless of one's expertise off-wiki, it is a policy. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
@JBW You are one of those individuals who cannot even comprehend that number lines and axes are two different names for the same thing, a fact that is so obvious that any person can visualize it in one dimension, i.e., when both are imposed on a geometric line. Despite that, you decide to engage in topics that require far more mathematical knowledge than is necessary to know that an axis and a number line are not different.
It is evident that you have not grasped the meaning of isomorphism. Contrary to what you stated, the informal language used to describe isomorphism is identical to what the formal definition of isomorphism asserts.
The fact that you think the informal description of isomorphism conveys anything different than its formal definition is a convincing proof that you do not understand mathematically rigorous concepts.
If you could fully comprehend the formal definition of isomorphism, then you would be able to realize that isomorphic structures can be used interchangeably. They are identical except possibly for the name of their members and the way their operations are defined, and these must be preserved under the defining bijection. For example, all the following groups with the implied operation of addition are isomorphic:
{..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...}
{..., apple-2, apple-1, apple0, apple1, apple2, ...}
{..., orange-34, orange-17, orange0, orange17, orange34, ...}
From a mathematical point of view, these three groups (not as sets) are indistinguishable, which can be proven rigorously (can you see it?). Only to people who do not have mathematical insight might these three groups look like different things, because they might argue that apples and oranges are not the same fruits.
You have demonstrated that you belong to the same set of people described above.
Isomorphism is not just about the sets themselves, but also considers the operations defined on them. It is evident that the set of integers and the set of multiples of 17 (or any other number) are two different sets. But what you do not understand is that when we consider them as groups with the defining operations of addition (with the usual meaning on both sets), then they become the same thing, except for the name of their elements. Each element in one group has exactly one counterpart in the other group, and more importantly, the operations are preserved under the defining bijection. When structures are studied, only the relevant properties are considered, and others are discarded, which you failed to realize its significance.
To summarize, everything you have said (except the obvious fact that the even integers and the multiples of 17 are not the same thing) is false. This demonstrates how deep your lack of mathematical knowledge is.
You are using mathematical jargon without knowing its significance in proving mathematical facts. You are not able to express advanced mathematical concepts with simple (informal) language. When you are not able to see the similarity between the informal description and rigorous definition of a concept such as isomorphism, it means you do not understand the concept yourself. Thereby, you deceive other users who may not be able to discover that what you say is contradictory to mathematical knowledge.
You are one of those individuals who cannot even comprehend that number lines and axes are two different names for the same thing, a fact that is so obvious that any person can visualize it in one dimension, i.e., when both are imposed on a geometric line. Despite that, you decide to engage in topics that require far more mathematical knowledge than is necessary to know that an axis and a number line are not different. Persianwise (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
There are different layers in math of abstractions of "being the same", e.g.,
  • Being equal. The fact that implies that every property of and are the same. The groups and are not equal, since e.g. but .
  • Being isomorphic. The groups and are isomorphic, because there is a group isomorphism, e.g. .
  • Being categorically equivalent. With this criterion there is even a groupoid (which is not a group) that is "the same" as .
Saying that isomorphic objects are "the same" is not presenting a fact but a value judgment. What is a fact is that being isomorphic does not imply that they are equal. So in my opinion, it's you who is not familiar with required knowledge to edit the article while being so overconfident and aggressive to other editors. 慈居 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
@慈居 @Persianwise please take this to WP:DRN as user talk pages are not the place to resolve content disputes. Zippybonzo | talk to me | what have I done (he|she|they) 15:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with WP:DRN. Is it okay to move the entire section to that page? 慈居 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The term different layers is not defined in mathematics. It is a fabricated term with no meaning. The bulleted list is also irrelevant.
Isomorphism is a profound concept that is beyond the understanding of some people. The precise term used in mathematical theorems is "are the same up to isomorphism." This means that they are interchangeable, both theoretically and practically.
It is clear that you did not understand the relevant mathematical explanation either.
The following example should make the matter clear to anyone except those who lack the necessary mathematical knowledge and pretend to have advanced mathematical competence:
Although the sets
{…, −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, …} and
{…, −IIV, −II, −I, 0, I, II, IIV,…}
are not identical, they are essentially the same when considered as groups under addition. This fact is self-evident, and it demonstrates exactly what an isomorphism is: two isomorphic groups are excatly the same thing, only with different member names. If they were not the same, you would imply that ancient mathematicians were not using numbers as we know them (except 0, and negative numbers), which is absurd.
The aforementioned example demonstrates to anyone with a mathematical sense that you lack the necessary mathematical knowledge to edit mathematics-related articles or make any sensible comments on mathematical discussions.
This is just one example. The assertion it makes holds true for all isomorphic groups. Isomorphism is a concept too profound to be grasped by someone like you.
Therefore, you are completely wrong, and you do not seem to understand what you are talking about. Just like @JBW, you do not comprehend valid mathematical reasoning or apply it in your arguments. Persianwise (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@慈居: This is a very simple question: Are number lines and axes the same thing, two different names for the same thing? Persianwise (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
One of my comment is removed by a careless revert by User:D.Lazard, but I'd just replace that by this one. An axis is an embedded image of the number line. they're not the same because the embedding is not considered an inclusion map. 慈居 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Elevator vandal

Just for interest: I've resumed patrolling the recent changes in the Portal and Portal talk namespaces, after a break of a few years. And lo, the elevator vandal is alive and well! Some people never give up. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@John of Reading: !!! What kind of a person can this be? For how many years have dedicated themself to this nonsense? How empty their life must be. JBW (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion rejection

You rejected my speedy deletion nomination for the file File:TEST Blank-USA+PRVI-CSS map.svg on the basis that you see no evidence it was a test file. You may want to read the name of the file and the description again and get some better glasses lol. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) {user page (@ commons) - talk} 17:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Matr1x-101: Oh dear! Silly me. 😳 Deleted now. Thanks for calling my attention to my mistake. I must have been half asleep 🛏 😴. JBW (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

TLA editors

You are the first other editor with a TLA user name that I've come across. But I see that, like me, you came late to the party. Do you know of any others? Does the Groucho Marx principle apply to this club? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@𝕁𝕄𝔽: Yes, it occurred to me that you and I had that in common. I'm all in favour of making it into a club. As for Groucho Marx, I have far lower standards than he had, and I'm willing to be a member even of a club that has such sickeningly low standards as to let me in. I don't know of any other potential members, but if you like you can search through all 17,576 possible TLAs (that's not counting TlAs, Tlas, and TLas) to see whether there are any. JBW (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

undelete Administration in Gujarat in Draft. DilipSpatel (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@DilipSpatel: OK, I'll do that, since you have asked. However, you may be able to think of a different way of phrasing your request which might have gone down better. JBW (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Admin's Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
for bringing a gentler and more thoughtfull approach to UTRS-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hussein saleh

Would you be willing to take a look? NotAGenious (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@NotAGenious: Well, I was taking a look, when another administrator deleted it. JBW (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I see. Thank you anyway! NotAGenious (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@NotAGenious: I'm afraid this seems to be a case of an editor who comes to Wikipedia in perfectly good faith, not realising that posting a personal web page won't be acceptable, but then failing to grasp the point when they have been told otherwise. Almost all of us, when we start editing Wikipedia, know little or nothing about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so nobody can be blamed for starting out doing things that are contrary to policies and guidelines that they don't know about. However, continuing to do the same things after being told about the relevant policies and guidelines is a different matter. I actually have a good deal of sympathy for anyone who has, as I said, come along in good faith, and put some time and effort into finding out how to create a Wikipedia article and putting in the work to do so, only to find their work thrown away. JBW (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree, that's why I attempted to explain relevant policy to the editor and offered help, but they decided it would be better to skip draftspace and recreate the article in mainspace and to remove the CSD template while logged out from 2 different IP addresses. Their faith was definitely good at first, but their editing for sure became disruptive afterwards. NotAGenious (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@NotAGenious: I see that the editor has now been blocked. I would have given them another chance, but it would probably have come to a block before long anyway. Sigh... JBW (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #79693

wanna decline? I can not be objective anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Your feelings echo my own, along with the soul searching and struggling for the right decision. I just could not face that ticket again. You conclusion was also my conclusion. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
And that was damned eloquent,-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #79429

wanna unblock?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. (Incidentally, Discospinster will not have received your ping from this edit, because you didn't ~~~~ it.) JBW (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Thaks. Drat.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

IP spammer

Back in March, you blocked 14.139.61.158 for persistent spamming. The person returned a week later as 45.249.87.37, then in July as 103.179.103.192, then in August as 103.179.103.168, September as 103.179.103.240 and 103.179.103.24, and today as 103.179.103.72. The last few of those are on the same range but is there a way to stop this person?

There are earlier IPs on a different range as well including 101.0.49.168 and 101.0.49.72.

They seem to add various hyme.com blogs to external links and theblondpost as refspam. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto: Unfortnatley there is nothing that is guaranteed to put a stop to this, but here are some actions which I hope may combine together to at least significantly slow it down, and just possibly stop it.
  1. I have posted a request for blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I don't know how likely it is that the request will be accepted, but my guess is that there has been enough spamming of the *hyme.com links that there's a fair chance that it will be accepted, but there are several other domains which have been spammed from the same IP addresses only a few times, so the request for blacklisting of those may be declined.
  2. I have checked the editing histories of the IP ranges concerned. In all cases the substantial majority of editing in recent months has been either spam from this spammer or other unconstructive editing, so I have blocked them for a few months. However, there is enough other editing from the IP ranges to make me reluctant to impose very long-term blocks, and even if I did so history suggests that the spammer might just move to other IP addresses, so that is unlikely to be a complete solution.
  3. I have created User:JBW/Avu2714 Link searches, which consists of a list of links to check for links to websites known to have been spammed by this spammer. (Avu271 is the name of an account which posted spam briefly in January 2020 before being blocked, and which I suspect is the same person as the IP spammer in question.) I hope to check those links every so often, so that I can revert and block if any of them turn up. Please feel welcome to check the links yourself, and if you find any then please revert and tell me so that I can block. Also, you are welcome to add more spam links to the page if you find any from the same spammer. JBW (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I added two more URLs to your list that you may not have been aware of. There is a hymeblogs twitter account which lists all the various websites they use and that is how I found quite a few of them via Wikipedia linksearches. I hope the blacklist works. That would take care of all of it quickly. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems "DESTROY" has access to university computers.

They haven't returned to this IP since their block expired but quack, quack. And here's another duck that was active a few days ago.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Looking at the edits you have provided, it wasn't at all obvious to me that this was the DESTROYER, but looking round at other edits from related IP addresses, it looks as though it may be, and even if it isn't, it's certainly a disruptive editor, so I've placed a range block and an article semi-protection. JBW (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello James

Hope you are good. I saw that this article Marie Boulton was reviewed via AfC process by a new page reviewer, but this article still came up in the Special:NewPagesFeed. Have any idea why? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

HI, Vanderwaalforces. I don't know much about NewPagesFeed. (Years ago I used to do new page patrolling, but that was on an older system before NewPagesFeed was invented.) However, the page Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, under the heading "How do I filter or sort articles?", says "The New Pages Feed offers filtering of articles. Reviewers can include or exclude redirects, unreviewed pages, reviewed pages, pages marked for deletion, articles with no categories or inbound links, articles created by new users or articles created by specific (or blocked) users." Have you set your options to remove reviewed pages? Also, it looks to me as though you may be confusing reviewing a newly created page with reviewing a draft article for creation, which is not at all the same thing. JBW (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
By default, the options are to see pages (in the main space, of course) that have not been marked as patrolled yet. And I have not changed that. So, I am surprised because that is not the expected behaviour. Also, I didn't confuse reviewing a newly created page and reviewing a draft article. Even, there is an option in the Special:NewPagesFeed that one can use to filter AfC submissions, I didn't select that either. Before I became autopatrolled, I use to submit draft articles to AfC for review and once a New page reviewer reviews it and move it to mainspace, the article is automatically marked as patrolled which will make it not appear in the Special:NewPagesFeed if you select to see only pages that have not been marked as patrolled.
But this article, even though reviewed at Afc, wasn't marked as patrolled upon review. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@Vanderwaalforces: Well, as I said, I don't know much about NewPagesFeed, and I don't have any other ideas to suggest. JBW (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion on Mykola Udianskyi

Hi. Can I ask to explain why my contest was rejected? Thank you Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I am at a loss to know what further relevant information I can provide that you don't already know about. As you have been informed, the article was substantially similar to one which was deleted as the outcome of consensus at a deletion discussion, and did not address the problems which led to that deletion. JBW (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I even have no idea how previos 2020 year article was similar. How can I check it? Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Can you review it again? I feel that I lost my efforts for nothing. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@Antonio Vinzaretti: Yes, it is, unfortunately, a serious defect of the deletion system that editors other than administrators can't see deleted articles so that they can't assess how different they are from one another. I have restored the deleted articles and moved them to User:JBW/Nikolai Udianskyi and User:JBW/Mykola Udianskyi. For several reasons I have blanked the pages, but you can see them as they were immediately before deletion here and here. If you can see significant enough differences to justify thinking that the newer version addresses the reasons given for deletion in the deletion discussion, tell me what they are, and I will consider them. JBW (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
As I see at first that 2020 version which called "Nikolai" contains weak number (10) of weak sources. My version contains sourse "Forbes" at least. And local Ukrainian RBC-Ukraine, Militarnyj, Kharkiv Govt Administration Website. And some parts of 2020 Nikolai version not appeared in 2023 Mykola such as PhD (?!), Assur Insurance Company (?!), conference in Hong Kong (LOL who cares), EVO country club (googled, haven't idea what is that. he own golf club? it's imp? probably no).
Instead of 2020 Nikolay - 2023 Mykola mentioned in case regarding Honorary Consul of Romania in Kharkiv; Qmall; Inguar. Some of source says he involved in ukrainian whitebit exchange too, but I not include it due to lack of reliable source. Thanks for your opportunity to improve Ukraine portal. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
@Antonio Vinzaretti: I will try to have a look at them and consider what you say, but I don't have time now to do it properly, so it will have to wait until I have more time. If I haven't got back to you about it within 24 hours then please prompt me. I suffer from attention deficit disorder, one of the symptoms of which is that if I delay doing something rather than doing it immediately, whether with or without good reason for the delay, it tends to get lost as my thoughts move on to other things, and so it never gets done; therefore a reminder to do it may be helpful. JBW (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I have similar symptoms too! Very difficult to live with that, but much more difficult live even in Ukraine now!) Even if you reject it again I don't care. I just was insulted by SPEEDY rejection of result my half-day work. It's my 2nd page and I'm a still newbee now. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
James, thank you for "Advice on starting editing" on my Talk page. Any news regarding comparison on User:JBW/Nikolai Udianskyi and User:JBW/Mykola Udianskyi? Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi James. I wanted to see again "2020 version", but when I came back User:JBW/Nikolai Udianskyi dissappeared. Okay, not important. How about Mykola Udianskyi? I think I resolved orphan tag, but it still not reviewed by anyone. What should I do next? I fixed issues in infobox too, added the page to the relevant WikiProjects. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

A westman

Hi, you unblocked A westman a week ago after they had been indefinitely blocked back in April by Discospinster. I just deleted Casa de Sante after it was tagged as an A7. I would be inclined to reblock the user as NOTHERE. In looking at their edit and their block log, it looks to me like the initial blocks were deserved and that they are not an asset to the project, but I didn't want to do that so soon after you gave the user "another chance" without talking to you first.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Funnily enough, just before you posted that message, I had been looking at the account's recent history, and I formed the opinion that it was probably a question of when, rather than whether, the block would be reinstated. I was going to leave it a little longer, to see whether they would really prove that the block was well deserved, but I have absolutely no objection at all if you want to go ahead now. JBW (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
ping Surjection, the blocking admin on Wiktionary, fyi. Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I've posted a warning to the editor's talk page. I don't think they are totally NOTHERE, but there's a strong element of that, and even where they seem to be making a sincere attempt to improve an article, I think quite often they don't do so. My own inclination is still to wait a while longer, in the hope they may take notice of warnings, but, as I indicated above, I won't get upset if you decide otherwise. JBW (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I would have blocked but don't feel comfortable doing so after your warning. Someone needs to tell the editor to use a different sig. They also need to stop being such a comic.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Yes, I intended to mention the signature in my warning, but forgot. I'll go back and do it. JBW (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
"A comic" What? A westman talk e-mail 16:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
You know what, just block me. I don't have much to contribute anyway and I think I'm doing more harm than good at this rate. A westman talk e-mail 17:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Absolutely. Obvious indef, with no doubt whatsoever. I gave a second chance more in hope than in expectation of success, but I don't regret doing so at all. Most of such second chances end in failure, but a significant minority of them do result in our retaining someone who becomes a constructive editor, and I believe that the advantage of those cases outweighs the disadvantage of the failures, most of which, unlike this one, become obviously failures almost immediately, so that scarcely any unconstructive editing takes place before the reblock. Anyway, thanks for letting me know about your block. I wonder how long it will take before the sockpuppet gets blocked. JBW (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic

Why was the Sputnikmusic page completely deleted? It is an entirely credible music site that has existed for a very long time, influencing artists and reviewers from other sites alike. Anthony Fantano even was a part of the site at one point. Sputnikmusic is talked about all the time on Twitter “X” too. Their reviews are also professionally credited on Metacritic. Deadlyfries (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

FYE31 is ban evading

Hi, I noticed that you had previously blocked FYE31. I am 90% sure that they have created a new account, Canofsoup1. Just look at their edits and compare them to FYE31's edits and talk page. Same exclusive focus on local California elections, same bad grammar, same fixation on removing gray bars from infoboxes. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: I've filed a report at SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FYE31. reppoptalk 06:35, 27 October 2023 (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. Thatnsukkaboy (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello JBW:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Request to unblock Bida Thomas

Hello @JBW User: Bida thomas is a member of the Wikimedia community user group in South Sudan, he encountered a block that he didn't understand and he has is a new but also active contributor maybe we would have more time to asses and see how best to help him out

thanks Lomoraronald (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lomoraronald: As you will have seen if you have read my comments on Bida's talk page, I put some work into writing messages to him trying to explain what the problems were. Many editors would not have bothered to do that, preferring to just spend a few seconds posting a pre-written generic templated warning. I put in the extra effort in the hope of helping him to deal with the problems, and avoid being blocked from editing. When another editor suggested that Bida was doing undisclosed paid editing, I wrote "It may be more a case of someone with strong views about politics and social justice trying to use Wikipedia to promote what they believe is just and right." That again was an attempt to help him avoid being blocked. Also, I am far more willing to unblock blocked editors to give them another chance than most administrators; consequently I would be very willing to unblock Bida if he could give justification for doing so. However, you say that he "didn't understand" the block, whereas it is normally considered that one of the requirements for unblocking a blocked editor is that they do understand the reasons for the block; if they don't understand the reasons then they are unlikely to be able to avoid making the same mistakes again. I will say a few things about how the block came about, in the hope that they may help.
  1. There was the issue of promotional editing. Most of the pages that Bida created did not look to me like outright spam; if they had, then I would have blocked much earlier, and not pent time trying to advise him. However, the pages all had an essentially promotional character, and I was by no means the only person to think so, as at least 7 other editors have done one or more of nominating pages he created for deletion as promotional, actually deleting them, or commenting on their promotional nature. My experience over the years is, unfortunately, that if an editor persistently edits in ways which appear to others to be promotional, but who cannot see why, it is usually difficult or impossible to make it clear to them. One can try describing in general terms what the nature of the problem is, as I did on Bida's talk page, particularly in the passage beginning "A large proportion of the pages you have created...", but usually, as in this case, the editor doesn't see what the point is. An alternative is to give specific examples of promotional text to illustrate the point, but often the problem is the whole tone and character of the writing, not specific examples of wording which one can point to. Nevertheless, here are a few examples of writing that Bida posted, which are really not written from a neutral point of view. "His efforts to bring peace back to the area also can't be ignored", "Yakani is experienced and has in-depth knowledge", "Gideon Sarpong is also an excellent writer", "He produces cutting-edge innovative work in a way that promotes opportunities for personal professional growth", and so on.
  2. When I moved, reluctantly, from trying to support Bida and help him to avoid being blocked to deciding to block him, I said that I had extended an assumption of good faith, but had now seen proof that Bida Thomas had not been acting totally in good faith. It is unfortunate that you have posted your request for me to unblock him after 9 months, because I don't remember now exactly what I had seen that led me to that conclusion. The one thing which I do know of where he had been less than totally forthcoming, was a discussion where another editor referred to him as a journalist, to which he replied that he wasn't a journalist, despite the fact that he was. However, that there was certainly more to it than just that minor detail, probably related to his denials that he has a "conflict of interest" in the sense of the Wikipedia policy on that. If he wishes to be unblocked he needs to be totally open about his connection to the subjects he has written about, and to correct any inaccurate statements he has made in the past.
  3. Six of the pages created by Bida were nominated for deletion by 10mmsocket and then deleted by Jimfbleak. Both 10mmsocket and Jimfbleak stated that part of the reason for deletion was speedy deletion criterion G5, which is to say creation by a banned or blocked user evading their ban or block. I have been unable to find what ban or block they think Bida was evading. Unfortunately 10mmsocket has not edited for more than three months, so it may not be possible to consult him, but Jimfbleak is still very much active, so, despite the long time that has passed, perhaps he can try to clarify the situation. I would certainly wish to see that matter clarified before considering unblocking. JBW (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for ping. Whatever reason I had for G5 at the time I can't recall now, and it may have been an erroneous assumption. I'm happy for you to take any action you think appropriate and in the interest of fairness assume that the G5 was incorrect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Jimfbleak. I shall, as you suggest, ignore the G5, and assume it was a mistake. Lomoraronald, that just means that Bida Thomas needs to demonstrate an understanding of the reasons for the block, and indicate that he will not make the same mistakes again. I will copy this conversation to his talk page. JBW (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Templates for converting acronyms into longer forms

Reading your profile, would it be useful to have templates like {{wp:coi}} --> conflict of interest? It would remove the longer typing while still preserving explanations.  AltoStev (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, AltoStev It took me a minute to realise what you were referring to when you wrote "Reading your profile". It's so many years since I wrote that on my user page that I had practically forgotten about it. Every so often I think of going through my whole user page and updating it, but I never do, because there's always something more important to do, so, despite occasional minor tweaks, the page substantially reflects me as a Wikipedian something in the order of a decade or so ago.
What you suggest could certainly be helpful, though the particular example you gave would not be possible, because it transcludes the whole conflict of interest guideline. Personally I tend not to bother with templates for anything so short, but it's a matter of taste. I do, however, have a number of templates in my user space for messages that I find I frequently use. (For example, try pasting {{user:JBW/NUA}} into the editing area of a page and clicking the preview button.) However, quite a number of those templates I have never or scarcely ever used, because I never remember that I've got them. That's the disadvantage of having created a large number of them; if I'd stopped at a smaller number of just the ones I use most, I would probably get more benefit from them. In fact that's probably part of the reason I don't tend to go in for the kinds of templates you suggest: the benefit of saving just a small amount of typing might not outweigh the disadvantage of adding a lot more templates to try to remember. As it is, with quite a number of the standard templates that I do use (i.e. not my personal ones), I have to look them up every time I want to use them, as I either don't remember the exact name or acronym for the template, or don't remember how to use its parameters, or something. However, your mileage may differ. JBW (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Reason for blocking 柏尾菓子

Hi JBW! Somebody just requested for 柏尾菓子 (talk · contribs) to be blocked on Wikidata because they were blocked on enwiki. I am curious why a jawiki sysop with more than 55,000 edits under their belt should be blocked indefinitely on enwiki with only 2 edits here. Obviously I cannot see deleted edits as I am no sysop myself.

If you are at liberty to say, could you give us a bit of context for your block decision?

Best, Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Same question, actually :) I suspect that the user who is requesting the block is a LTA, so I'm wondering if there is something I may be missing. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I am also interested in why you blocked 柏尾菓子. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The person who reported 柏尾菓子 for vandalism [9] is now blocked globally. What is going on here? Jonathan Groß (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathan Groß, FlyingAce, and Syunsyunminmin: It seems that I was mistaken in making the block, and I have now removed the block. I was misled by similarity of the edits to those of another editor who has used multiple sockpuppets, but looking back I now think the similarity was superficial, and I was guilty of acting hastily. Thanks to all of you for drawing my attention to my mistake, so that I could correct it. JBW (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi JBW

How are you today? Please, while reviewing Draft:Deji_Olatunji, I was inclined to accept it, but it was create-protected by you. Do you mind lifting the protection on it. Also, there was a recent discussion about their removal from WP:DEEPER which should allow a standalone article to be created about them, which of course has brought about this draft, I presume. This RfC specifically. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Vanderwaalforces. I'm reasonably OK, as I hope you are. My first impulse is to say that the deletion discussion was over 5 years ago, and much can change in that time, so it's reasonable to give it another chance. However, I have in the past made serious mistakes by acting on such first impressions, so I think I should first check to see if there are other considerations that I don't know about, or once knew but five years on don't remember. Unfortunately I don't have time to do the kind of checking I think is needed now, but I'll try to do it soon. If I haven't got back to you on this within 24 hours or so then please prompt me again. I suffer from fairly severe attntion deficit disorder, one of the effects of which is that anything I put off for a while, even for good reasons, is likely to get lost as I then put it off again when something else takes my attention. JBW (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Good morning (at least from here :-)) It's good to hear you're okay. I am sorry about the attention deficit disorder and will wait for you to do the necessary checking, and if you don't reply by 24 hours later, I will ping you here. Thank you so much for your time. Wishing you a great day. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, I have now looked at the draft. I put quite a bit of time and trouble checking references and writing an assessment of the situation, and unfortunately only after I had done so did I check the history of the draft. If I had done that earlier I would have saved myself a lot of time, because I would have found various relevant pieces of history, including at least three deletion discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji (Youtuber), & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji Olatunji) and a deletion review which produced a good deal of reason for not overturning the deletions; the fact that, contrary to what I thought when I wrote my comment above, the last time this was dealt with was not 5 years ago; the fact that a very experienced and competent reviewer (Bonadea) had already rejected (not just declined) the draft, and so on and so on... However, since I have put the time into checking, I may as well give you an indication of what I found. The following is a somewhat edited and abbreviated version of what I originally wrote, to take into account the observations I have made above.
  • I have checked references in the article. Several of the references were not about Deji Olatunji, but about his brother, and at least one of those doesn't even mention Deji Olatunji at all, as far as I can see. Another one contains just a two-sentence mention of him, one of those two sentences being "He's also the brother of KSI": not substantial coverage of him. Another is a news report of the fact that he had "admitted dangerous dog offences". Then there's a page linking to a YouTube video about which it tells us "This son’s prank on his father could not have gone worse". And so it goes on with the other references. I'm afraid that none of this is substantial coverage of Deji Olatunji, and with the best will in the world they don't come within a thousand miles of showing that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notabiliy guidelines, so I can't possibly even think of overturning the outcome of three separate deletion discussions and a deletion review on the basis of its present content and references. JBW (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    I really appreciate this reply. Although, I had same thoughts, because I also did my own findings today and my views later changed which are not far from yours. I will now do justice to the draft based this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Cardinal O'Connor Conference on Life proposed deletion

I removed the PROD tag; different Catholic media outlets vary in their independence from Church authorities. I thought better of this, reverted myself and left a neutrally-worded notice at:

I started to evaluate some of the refs and found I just didn't have the time for all of them. My "guess" is that there are probably at least 2 that are independent-ish enough. Guesses, however, are insufficient to either keep or delete an article.

Perhaps the best thing is to merge the article to March for Life (Washington, D.C.)#Catholic events.

Anyway, thanks for what you do around here. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Please block ПаузЛ‎, ‎لوااوا , アスペ2023‎, et, al.

Per your comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/あすぺるがあすぺしゃりすと, please block ПаузЛ (talk · contribs)‎, ‎لوااوا (talk · contribs) , アスペ2023 (talk · contribs)‎, et, al, thanks. -Lemonaka‎ 09:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: I've blocked those + 1 more account that I found + 1 IP address. Thanks for letting me know, and please feel welcome to tell me of any others you know of. JBW (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@JBWMaybe a range of IP behind them, that's the reason why I requested CU again and again. If such IP range found, requesting to SRG will be the best solution. -Lemonaka‎ 12:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


Do you ever wish

that you could make psychiatric referrals? I really feel the WMF should provide a free Clinical Psychologist or free Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner for those of us in need. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: We would provide a fairly lucrative amount of work to the psychologists in question. It had not occurred to me until just a few minutes ago that the reason why a certain person denies having vandalised may be not that they are trolling, but that they actually believe the crazy fantasies they have posted. (You have probably seen the page I have in mind, now deleted.) Another case I have recently been dealing with involves someone who claims to be a university mathematics professor, which is patently false, and while I very much think it is a lie, it conceivably could, I suppose, be a sincerely believed delusion. JBW (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I hereby claim I am the son of the senior-though-illegitimate heir of the Habsburgs. Dad was born 1913, just before things got out of hand, and his father never wed my grandmother. Actually, I fancy my maternal and paternal grandfathers taking potshots at each other across no man's land. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Ha ha! You have played right into my hand. If ever you cross me in any way, I can now use that crazy post as justification for blocking you indefinitely for hoaxing. Or for CIR violation. Whichever I decide I prefer. Bwaa haa haa... JBW (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Nah, I can't back it up. Don't have the chin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

English coaching

Hello JBW. Do you run English coaching classes? Actually I do not have better command in this language and I am deeply concerned about improving this language. I would love learning speaking in this language from you. Please let me know if you are into teaching this language, I gurantee you one day I will have better command in this language the sooner than your expectation. Please copy this text and paste it in your automatic translator if you find it difficult to understand what I tried to say you in this language. I will pay your fee in time for learning this language. Thank you for opening my eyes otherwise I would have done something really embarrassing in editing using this language. 2409:4081:8490:62B3:0:0:1C9:10B0 (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't. Sorry that I can't help you. JBW (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
@JBW. Then why the hell you judge someone's command over a language? Focus on yourself,not on others. All are better than you. Judge me the day when you are able to speak in my first language like the way I speak, English might be your first language not mine, it's my fourth language.Remember it forever. 2409:4081:9D0D:873D:0:0:CC0A:5E08 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) This is English Wikipedia. If you are not able to contribute with good English, perhaps you should consider contributing to your native language Wikipedia. I don't contribute to languages that I am not fluent in (for example, I do know some Spanish, but not enough to effectively contribute to Spanish Wikipedia). - ZLEA T\C 14:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? So far as I know the only contact I have ever had with you is you asking me if I run English classes, and me answering that I don't. I am totally unaware of doing anything remotely like judging someone's command over a language. If you have a constructive criticism of something I have done, then please tell me what it was, and where I did it, so that I can consider your criticism and see whether I have made a mistake. Just throwing angry attacks at me without explaining what you are referring to achieves no useful purpose whatever. JBW (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page watcher) Big difference between being fluent English and being able to teach English. And that is not our role. There are plenty of ESL classes out there. It would be commendable to seek one out. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I have a smattering of German, Latin, and Spanish. Wouldn't dare trying to edit in any of those. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Scott Woodward (marketer)

Hello, JBW,

I came across this article and thought it looked very familiar. And after some searching on alternative page titles, I found I deleted an almost identical version of this article at an AFD this summer. I'm coming to you because I see that you blocked User:Scott Edward Woodward after a brief ANI discussion who could have been the article subject (there was another editor, User:Scottewoodward, that also claimed to be Scott Woodward). Any way, the primary Woodward account was very insistent that he have an article on Wikipedia. I've tagged this new article as a CSD G4 but I'm more concerned about the editor who created who has been around for a while but this looks like paid editing to me. What do you advise? I haven't dealt with a lot of paid editing incidents before. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Editingforgk, an editor who moved a draft of an article on Scott Woodward from Draft space to main space was blocked for undisclosed paid editing by User:Drmies so it wouldn't be the first time this has happened with articles on this subject. I just hate to lose a longtime editor over my suspicions if I'm incorrect. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Liz, Editingforgk is also confirmed with User:Adamsanders546 and User:Mrabnermares, and it's a paid sockfarm, no doubt--just an FYI. User:Scott Edward Woodward indeed seems to be a spammer, while based on geolocation Scottewoodward might well be the real guy. But who knows. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information, Drmies. I'm more concerned with whether DIVINE is doing paid editing. I'm sure they aren't a sock, well, I think it's unlikely. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah OK, now I see it: from the article in the section heading. Fun fact: they're operating from a range that our very own JBW blocked, but for something completely unrelated, and I'm happy to say there is no evidence whatsoever of anything untoward. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I am the real Scott Woodward, per your geotracking (scottewoodward).
The article was not paid and I've been in the industry 35 years with much press (perennial and otherwise to support a Wikipedia Page).
If you want to reach me directly to verify my passport or drivers license, contact me via email.
Indeed I had a sock puppet and spammer imitating me under Scott Edward Woodward this summer vandalizing / self editing me and JBW banned them thankfully.
While I cannot forward any of the links or websites on this "reply" chain, I can forward:
my personal website scottwoodward (there is a press page on this website with career press).
work website: sewbranded
both websites are .coms
linkedin: i can provide this, but it won't allow me to send the link and its verified.
instagram: @scottwoodward - i can provide this and am verified.
youtube: @scottwoodward - i can provide this also.
google knowledge panel: i have one but it won't allow me to cut and paste the link.
twitter: i can provide a parsons tweet on me but it won't let me send the link. Scottewoodward (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Liz, Drmies, and Scottewoodward: I saw Liz's and Drmies comments here several hours ago, and looked into the matter, but I had to leave the computer before I had time to deal with it. By the time I got back, GB fan had deleted the article, which was what I would have done. I also found Draft:Scott Woodward, which was almost identical to the article which Liz deleted at AfD, so I have deleted that. Interestingly, an earlier draft under the same title had been G13-deleted, before the AfD by none other than Liz. (Or maybe I should say "our very own Liz", following the lead set by Drmies.)
  • There is clearly a very concerted effort being made to get an article about this person established, with a number of accounts having created articles or drafts which are far too similar to one another to allow the possibility that they are independent of one another. There are several reasons for thinking that this is paid editing, perhaps the clearest and most obvious being the fact the creator of the latest version has stated, both on his user page and on his talk page, that he was paid to create the article. It is difficult to think of a reason why he did so if he wasn't paid, and even more difficult to imagine why he would do that and someone, he or someone else, would go to such protracted lengths to give the impression of paid-editing sockfarm. The owner of the account Scottewoodward has stated that it is for extortion purposes, so maybe it is, though it's still difficult to see why it would carry on in quite the way it has done. (I can actually think of a less implausible possible explanation of all that I have seen, but I don't have any direct evidence, so it will be better if I don't comment further about it, unless and until I do have more direct evidence.)
  • The fundamental point, however, is that a community discussion has reached the conclusion that this Scott Woodward does not merit a Wikipedia article, so any further recreations of the article need to go the way of the past ones, no matter how many accounts create no matter how many new copies of the page, no matter whether it is done for pay or not, and no matter who is running any of the accounts involved. JBW (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Further comment requested on Deji Olatunji

Hi JBW! I hope all has been well lately. Recently, you had a discussion on this talk page about Draft:Deji Olatunji (in archive 83 under “Hi JBW”). For now, I can respect that decision, and with optimism hope that sometime the article is eventually in mainspace form, whether from my help or other editors. I did want to ask, though, if you had any particular thoughts you’d like to share about a relevant RFC about that issue that happened over the summer, or what role did it play when you were deliberating on this draft? It is present over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube/Archive 2. Thanks! (sorry if I am dragging this particular issue out.) DrewieStewie (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@DrewieStewie: I did not know of the existence of that discussion, so it did no play any role. Looking at it now, a signficant part of the discussion was not about the notability of the subject of the article, but about procedural issues, such as whether an RfC was a suitable venue. Someone posted a list of their opinions on some sources, bu unfortunately instead of providing links to those sources they merely provided links to Wikipedia articles about the publishers of those sources, which was really not helpful. Nevertheless, I put some effort into trying to check what was being referred to, and I found no sign at all of sources which establish notability but which have not been cited in the article. I may say that I am not personally a great fan of Wikipedia's notability guidelines; in my opinion there is a case for allowing factors such as having received considerable attention relating to YouTube to be given weight. On the other hand, I am not personally interested enough in whether or not someone who has posted lot of YouTube videos gets a Wikipedia article or not to rally be interested in putting lot of work into the matter. My further studies of the question, prompted by your consulting me here, have not changed what I see as the essence of the situation, and which, as I have stated before, is that nowhere that I have seen has anyone provided any evidence of notability according to Wikipedia's standards, and that absent such evidence there is no case for reversing the outcomes of a string of deletion discussions. However, if you can prove otherwise and persuade enough people that the situation has changed then that will be absolutely fine with me. JBW (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Actually, just to state this for the record, the links to sources pertaining to Deji in the discussion are linked directly next to the linked Wikipedia articles of the sources in Arabic numerals (1 and 2), both in the table and in the bullet list. It’s a little hard to tell because the color is similar, I know. I can respect this take, at that point, what is to be done now is for work to be continued on the draft by other parties before it can be submitted again. I am prepared to withdraw another person’s submission for review if I feel substantial enough work hasn’t been done before the submission. Thanks for your input and guidance! Have a good one. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

EMERG notifications

I'm pretty sure they just ignore most of my notifications. My subject lines generally say "likely not serious". Still, I know for sure they have taken action in at least a couple of my notifications. Meh, I just figure I'm not qualified to really make the call and so it's a second set of eyes. Anyway, thanks (as always) for your comment. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

208.125.9.178

Good day. Mind taking a look at this IP. Thanks. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Minorax: Yes. As you have probably seen, this vandal became highly active recently. To begin with they used numerous sockpuppet accounts, but they have now switched to IP editing, frequently faking my signature on their edits. Pleased revert any editing from them on sight, and report for blocking. Blocking won't stop the problem, because they will just come back on another IP address, but it may slow them down a bit, and possibly even slightly bring forward the the time when they get bored and move on to some other idiotic way of passing their time. JBW (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

User:User talk:Henshaws

Hello, JBW,

I'm not sure where this page should go but it probably doesn't belong at this page title. Just checking. Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops! 🥴 Now moved to User talk:Henshaws. Thanks, Liz. 👍 JBW (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

To promote WikiLove

Cookies!

ThatOneWolf has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

ThatOneWolf (talk|contribs) 04:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

IP Block: 144.122.0.0/16

Hi! 144.122.0.0/16 IP block was blocked for 3 years from October 27, 2023. I kindly ask either removing this block, or giving IP exemption to the user names our user group (wikimedia community user group Türkiye) so that those users can make changes. Basak (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Basak: The block is anon only, so it shouldn't affect anyone with an account. I have removed the block on account creation for now. Let me know whether that solves your problem. JBW (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I informed the users. Since it's a school IP, they will try tomorrow morning the earliest. I will let you know when i hear from the users. Thanks a lot.Basak (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


Angelic Devil

(cringe) I know what you mean, but they are just out of options. Hopefully, their will to edit will force them to adapt. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

And sadly, I thought they had a better language. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: Yes, I too was surprised by the lack of a better language, but maybe where they live education is conducted in English. JBW (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #81839

You are a saint. A saint. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Errm, what? Even if I were immodest enough to believe that (which, unfortunately, I'm not) I don't see how it comes out of the conversation you linked to. JBW (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I guess compared to the thoughts I had . . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh, gah. I guess their response there sums up as not them but everyone else.😟 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Removed text

Hi @JBW, you just removed some text from User_talk:Goran_tek-en#c-Goran_tek-en-20231203150400-Bonus, how so? It was not my text but it was for me, did the writer copy it from some book or what, thankful for explanation. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. JBW (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

List of Roman gentes

I'd like to apologize for my intemperate language earlier. The page had been vandalized four times in the previous two days, and another vandal on the Cyclops article was gaming the system by accusing an admin of abusing his power by reverting nonsense, changing names each time—so I was clearly in the mindset of stopping vandalism when I came across your edits. And I did spot one instance of vandalism that I'd previously missed, and deleted it. So you were correct that vandals do add things, although I do catch them nearly all of the time.

I want to reassure you that this list is carefully patrolled—it's on my watchlist because I created the original version, and either created or edited all but a few of the linked articles, all of which are documented. Some could be better—I started working on this project in 2009 or 2010, when I was still fairly new to Wikipedia, so time and experience have shown me a number of ways to improve articles on Roman gentes, and I sometimes go back and make small fixes or large overhauls on the older ones.

Some of the redlinks that you deleted en masse earlier were indeed added at a period when the list was being heavily vandalized, but I'm quite certain that I checked them all to see which were genuine nomina. It's possible that I missed one or two, but a number of redlinks—mainly under 'V', as I was progressing down the alphabet beginning with 'A', and trying to finish all of the articles under each letter before moving on to the next one—were added by me. I stopped adding more because I wanted to see any new links appear on my watchlist, and I realized that if people started one on a redlink I'd added, I wouldn't see it. But I didn't delete the redlinks that other people added as long as I could verify that they were proper nomina, for which an article could be created down the line.

If I get back to the project in the next few months, my goal is to go through the V's, which are mostly redlinks based on entries in the DGRBM that I scouted ahead of time, probably with a few others I ran across in other sources. Then I'll start again with the redlinks in 'A'. At that point, I would delete any that didn't appear substantial enough to support an article, but as I said, I think all of the current redlinks will.

The easiest way to check is using the Clauss-Slaby Datenbank. That doesn't include most persons known from history or Roman literature; they're generally in the DGRBM, PW, or PIR. But it does include hundreds of published books, journals, and other literature about Roman epigraphy. The search feature can take a bit of getting used to—but once you know how to search the database, you can sometimes find several dozen persons under a given name—hundreds for the better-known gentes, which is why most of those don't have a lot of entries known solely from epigraphic sources!

For instance, take the Anquirinnia gens. Searching for partial matches under "Anquirin..." (because I have to guess that the 'n' might not always be doubled, and we could have masculine or feminine endings in the nominative, accusative, genetive, or dative, singular or plural) brings up two inscriptions, which would probably not be enough for an article—except that six different Anquirinni are mentioned in those two inscriptions! Which would be enough for at least a short article listing them, with what little is known about them from those inscriptions and the publications including them (two sources are cited). From this we know that there was such a gens, and that the nomen is not the product of fantasy.

Most of the redlinked names will have more persons than this; I used Anquirinnia as an example, because it's an unusual name that stuck in my mind when I saw it had been deleted. In instances where I can find only one or two names, or perhaps just one with a praenomen (which helps us determine that the following name is a nomen gentilicium), I may add the name to the list of Roman nomina instead, and cite the sources for the inscriptions, instead of creating an article where those works would be cited.

I hope that now you've had a chance to see how this list is curated and why the redlinks exist where and how they do, you'll be satisfied with the state of the list as it currently stands. I'm not the only one working on Roman gentes; StarTrekker and one or two other people are known to create articles, and several other editors add biographical article links to the existing ones. WP:CGR isn't as active as it once was, but we still have a number of dedicated editors, and while we don't agree on everything, we do keep a close eye on our articles to make sure that they're not vandalized or filled with nonsense. P Aculeius (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Following the removal of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mohammad_Mansourmoghaddam

Dear JBW Everyone introduces themselves in a way, so my introduction is a scientific character! I have my own website as well as a Google referral! but did you see a resume file or a link to my social pages on that page? Except a few lines and a picture? Please return the page. My intention was not to advertise, I want to be active on Wikipedia (after a long time), it was just a brief introduction without any additional advertising or references! Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam: If you want to be an active editor on Wikipedia, then contribute to the writing of this encyclopedia. We have a backlog of tasks where you could help out. Wikipedia is not a social networking site for you to post your thoughts or converse with other editors. If you actively edit here, then your user page could tell us about your editing per WP:UP. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Dear Chris (@Chris troutman)
I have the right to introduce myself on my user page, as long as there is no advertisement and there is no content like a social network. I only wrote two lines about myself and included a photo, and the whole page was removed! I didn't include any links to sites or social media outside of Wikipedia, does that mean social networking or thoughts or converse? Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
You have made no other mainspace edits to this wiki, so it seems like you are not really here to write the encyclopedia and hence, lines on your userpage seem to violate WP:UP#NOT. And since you don't own this website, you should probably ease off on foolish claims about your rights. Wikipedia is not about your userpage, so why is that the single focus of your editing? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam: Unfortunately, it is not possible to tell for certain by looking at a new user page such as yours whether it has been created by a new editor who is here to contribute to the encyclopaedia but happens to have chosen to start by creating a page announcing who they are, or by someone whose purpose is to use Wikipedia to publicise themselves. It is therefore necessary to make a judgement, and of course judgements can sometimes be wrong. However, there are various pointers which can give clues as to the nature of the situation, and naturally the more such pointers are all pointing the same way, the more one is inclined to be confident of which is more likely to be correct. Among other pointers are the following. Only a very small proportion of editors who are here to contribute to the encyclopaedia create a user page as a first step; a large proportion of editors who are here to use Wikipedia as a host for a personal web page do so. Scarcely any (not just not many) editors who are here to contribute to the encyclopaedia start by uploading a photograph to put on their user pages; a significant proportion of editors who are here to use Wikipedia as a host for a personal web page do so. I have rarely if ever seen an editor who is here to contribute to the encyclopaedia start off with a user page in which they announce what they think are their good qualities, such as telling us what "skills" they think they have; many editors who are here to publicise themselves do so. I could give more, but that's probably enough to give you an impression. The material that you wrote telling us about what you regard as your "skills" very much looked like self-promotion, but the rest would not be particularly unsuitable in a user page for an established active contributor. I suggest that when you have become significantly active as an editor, and made some significant contributions, you may like to come back to me and ask me to reconsider the situation. JBW (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam: I wrote the message above under the impression that I was dealing with a new editor who had no experience of hiw Wikipedia works, and who, despite appearances to the contrary, might possibly genuinely be here to contribute neutrally to the encyclopaedia, not to promote himself. However, I subsequently discovered that you have had another account for years, and that almost every edit you have been made has concerned yourself, whether by posting information about yourself into articles, by putting references to you own work into articles, by creating a user page which seeks to tell us about what you regard as your skills, or otherwise. It is clear that you are here to publicise and promote yourself, and your denials above were disingenuous. JBW (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for your explanation; But again, you have premature judgment, because 1) as I said earlier, I came to Wikipedia for a new start, 2) the mentioned account (even if I wanted to use it again) is for Wikipedia in another language and I don't want to use it again. 3) If you search my name, you will find that I (honestly) don't need to advertise (and of course, I don't see it moral in the encyclopedia space), so just a few lines about the person who is going to write his articles and subsequent editions. I wrote for everyone to see (because I had planned to write specialized articles on new fields of remote sensing and therefore it would be better for everyone to see that it was written by an expert), but you considered it an advertisement and unfortunately, you still believe that it should be deleted. 4) I am surprised that you say that those about 500 edits were related to me!, while only the last few (with the aim of completing specialized topics) were from my scientific articles and (again) not advertisements (If an expert presents his published scientific opinion, should he be condemned with the judgment of "advertisement for himself"? In my opinion, this was not fair to me!).
    I'm sorry that the prejudices of other people's vandalism have affected your view of me and, at least for now, much of my motivation and enthusiasm has been lost with this welcome to the English Wikipedia. Thanks and best wishes. Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam: No, you brought discredit upon yourself. Per Wikipedia:Expert editors, you need to stay away from trying to prove your outside knowledge, asserting credentials, or citing your own work. If you want to edit the remote sensing article, go ahead. Your ability to improve the article is what we judge, not who you are in real life. Honestly, if yours is a fresh start account, you can just forget about your prior account. You don't want to reveal too much and we don't care. Please remember that Randy in Boise edits here, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    Hey; what's wrong with you? Why are you attacking me with such harsh tone every time? Instead of attacking, it is better to tell where my words or actions were immoral or abusive? Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    All I found out is that the part I mentioned under "skills" was wrong and was considered an advertisement and this was not intentional, and if I had been warned I would have removed it, I don't know if you are one of the admins or not. But it is not appropriate to speak like that, while I try to explain everything clearly and without bad intentions (maybe you misunderstood me based on a wrong judgment, don't you think?) Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    You have raised a number of points there. I shall address two of them.
  1. Referring to your deleted user page, I said "... but the rest would not be particularly unsuitable in a user page for an established active contributor". I wrote that in the belief that I was addressing a new editor, and I wished to reduce the negative impact of what I said. Otherwise I might have said something more like "... but the rest would perhaps be tolerable as a small part of a user page for an established active contributor". Nevertheless, my invitation to ask me to reconsider when you have become significantly active as an editor, and made some significant contributions still stands, though I intended in the context for it to be clear that I meant that those contributions should be predominantly not about yourself. Obviously, an assessment of how far your contributions are predominantly not about yourself will take into consideration all of your editing, including that which you have already done.
  2. You refer to 500 edits. I assume you are referring to all your editing, on several Wikimedia projects, but only editing of English Wikipedia concerns me. Your other account on Wikipedia has made 29 edits. Of those, 2 were article edits which did not, as far as I could see, relate to yourself; the other 27 were all connected to yourself, whether in articles, userspace, or user talk.
  • One more thought. Since your main purpose here is to contribute to the encyclopaedia, not to write about yourself, why are you battling so hard to be able to restore a page about yourself? Why is it so important to you? JBW (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
    Aha, Now I understand why there was suspicion about my previous edits, because only a few of my English edits were visible to you, as I mentioned before, that account was in another language, no problem.
    No, with this accusation, I don't intend to make a user page like that anymore, because there has been a lack of trust in me among the administrators, and it is useless. So, I will try to contribute for now until later... (although, at the first it was just a question and explained about not advertising and unfortunately it turned into a challenge and argue with me)
    Thank you for your time and response and best wishes. Mohammad Mansourmoghaddam (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS

An editor who only logs in to make problematic original research edits has modified your talk page comments to change their meaning. See here: [10]. This vandalism has remained in place for close to three years. I was going to revert it and take it to ANI myself but then I noticed you're an admin and might be able to take an appropriate course of action yourself. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: Thank you for telling me. I have reverted the talk page edit you mentioned, and I have watch-listed their talk page and made a note to check their contributions from time to time. I'm not sure whether there's much else that can usefully be done. A block might help, but it might not; a person who so rarely edits would probably not find it too much of an inconvenience to have to wait next time they want to edit long enough to have a chance to create an account on another device, and to allow any autoblock to expire. If so, the main effect of the block might be to cause further editing to take place on another account that we don't know about and therefore can't watch. My feeling is that, with edits being so few and far between, it may be better to just rely on watching, and reverting each one when it happens. I will give the person a warning about changing other editors' talk page messages, however, and if they do it again I will reconsider the situation. JBW (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Another FYE31 sock

User:IE06V21* started their account today and immediately started replacing images on the city council district articles to the same "No image" images and replacing the other Marqueece Harris-Dawson image back to the one FYE31 uploaded. Uses the same "if there is any questions let me know" phrase in their edits. reppoptalk 02:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry a agreed with FYE View am no a FYE IE06V21* (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Why are you acusing me of being FYE31 reppoptalk IE06V21* (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi JBW I am not FYE I only agreed with his opinon I dont know why reppop is acusing me of being FYE31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IE06V21* (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This IP

I don't know the history here, but based on latest edit [11], maybe block shouldn't be partial. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for calling my attention to this. I've checked the recent editing history of the range. The ratio of constructive to unconstructive edits is high enough to make me doubtful about putting a total block on so large a range, but I've found that a large proportion of the vandalism has been from the smaller range 78.86.0.0/18, so I have blocked that. I may have another look when I have more time, to see whether there are any other subranges which could be blocked. Also, of course, please let me know if you see any more that you think needs to be dealt with. JBW (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Wishing a speedy recovery

Sorry to hear about the surgery, JBW, but hopefully you will have a speedy recovery. In the interim, you will be missed. S0091 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hear hear. This doesn't sound like a fun way to spend December, I hope everything works out well (and quickly)! --Yamla (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I wish that you have a good luck on that, but you would do well after this. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Best wishes and hope to see you back soon. Tropicalkitty (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

New targets for partial rangeblock

Hi JBW,

Could you add the following pages to the partial block of the IP range 51.191.0.0/16? :

These other three pages also have some disruptive block-evading activity from that /16 range, but last activity from them were from like two weeks ago, so I'd not sure if it'd be "stale" to add them now:

Also I'm sorry to hear about your health issues, I do hope that the surgery goes well and that you'll get better soon! — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@AP 499D25: Thanks for your good wishes. I've made the changes to the partial block that you suggested, and also extended the length of the block to a year. However, the way it looks suggests to me that it's likely to move to other pages, in which case it may be necessary to consider a total block. I would very much prefer to avoid that if possible, but if you see any more problematic editing from the same range then please feel welcome to let me know, and I'll look at it. JBW (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

The 12 Days of Wikipedia
On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me
12 BLPs
11 RFAs
10 New Users
9 Barnstars
8 Admins Blocking
7 Socks Socking
6 Clerks Clerking
5 Check Users Checking
4 Oversighters Hiding
3 GAs
2 Did You Knows
and an ARB in a pear tree.

-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health.--Chris Troutman (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This message was generated using {{subst: The 12 Days of Wikipedia}}

Seasonal greetings!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello JBW, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Additionally, wishing you a speedy recovery too :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, JBW!
Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Wikipedia and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy, good health, and prosperity.

RV (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's greetings


Christmas postcard featuring Santa Claus using a zeppelin to deliver gifts, by Ellen Clapsaddle, 1909
~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello JBW: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal with Italian addresses

Happy holidays to you and yours.

I've recently encountered vandals from the ranges 151.43.0.0/16 & 151.57.0.0/16; some IPs in these ranges have been removing death details from various celebrities, among other problematic edits, and there is a bit of overlap so they're probably all the same editor. Blocking both ranges in their entirety would likely cause too much collateral damage but maybe the problematic ones could be isolated into specific ranges and the good IPs left alone?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like they were also using parts of 151.46.0.0/16.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68 this may be related to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#LTA from disruptive 93* IP ranges given this edit to 85 Sky Tower (there may be more but grabbed the first I saw). It might be a good idea to raise this at ANI to get additional eyes. S0091 (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I have checked the first of the 2 ranges mentioned in Skywatcher68's original message above. The death-information-removal vandal has used a number of IP addresses in the range, which I could easily block individually, but I doubt that would do much good, because they would probably just move yo more addresses in the range. However, most of the other editing from the range has been disruptive too, and whether it's from the same person or not doesn't matter: either way a total range block would do far more good than harm. However, I find find one subrange where most recent editing seems to have been OK (as far as I can see from a very quick check) so instead of blocking the whole range I have put blocks on a number of subranges but avoiding the ones which look OK. I'll have a look at the two other 151... ranges, though possibly not in so much detail, because of limited time.
@S0091: A very quick look at the links you gave didn't make it obvious to me that it's related, but that doesn't mean it isn't. I probably won't have time to do further checking there for a number of hours, so you may like to follow up your own suggestion of taking it to ANI. JBW (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68 and S0091: My latest update. For 151.57.0.0/16, all of the relevant editing that I spotted was actually in the smaller range 151.57.0.0/17 and looking at other editing from that range convinced me that there was very little likely collateral damage, so I have blocked it. 151.46.0.0/16 is not quite so straightforward. As far as I noticed, only a couple of IP addresses have been used by this person, and not very recently, so it would be difficult to justify a block on a large range for a large amount of time, but I have blocked the subrange 151.46.128.0/18 for a shorter time. Unfortunately these limited blocks may merely have the effect of pushing the troublemaker to move to other subranges, so if you see any more of the same coming up on other ranges in the near future then please let me know. I will be willing to consider bigger blocks if they seem necessary. JBW (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. I'll certainly let you or somebody know if I see anything similar while patrolling Recent Changes. Good luck with your surgery, by the way.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

"Just Me (Sarah Geronimo album)" redirect

I checked the history of the redirect and it was protected from editing/article creation due to sockpuppetry since 2014. A separate page was already created for Sarah Geronimo's discography and I request for the redirect to be unprotected so that I can change the target redirect. RMXY (talk • contribs) 12:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@RapMonstaXY:  Done After such a long time it's reasonable to expect that the problematic editor has gone. JBW (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

James Fell page creation

Hello JBW. I am sorry to hear that you are facing surgery and I wish you well. I have created a Wikipedia page in my sandbox for James Fell (author) and apparently it has been attempted before (unless it is a different James Fell) and you were the person who deleted it. I have been instructed to ask you to allow me to publish the page. Let me know if there is anything I need to do to resolve this. Thank you, and stay well.Hippopotenuse72 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Hello again. It seems I was able to publish, but I have pinged you on the talk page so you can check that the work meets Wikipedia standards. Again, I hope you are well, and I look forward to your comments.Hippopotenuse72 (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Hello, Hippopotenuse72. (I see you are a fellow retired maths teacher.) I've had a quick look at the article you have created, and it looks fine. It certainly doesn't have the kind of problems which led to the earlier version being deleted. As a general rule, if a page has been speedily deleted, you can assume that you are free to create a new version, provided it doesn't suffer from the problems which led to the deletion, in this case that means as long as the new version isn't promotional. It's best to be a bit more cautious if a page has been deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion, though. JBW (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
      Thanks for your quick reply, fellow maths teacher! I am constantly learning new things here on Wikipedia. I appreciate your explanation.Hippopotenuse72 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for turning my draft into the article. When I enter my sandbox there is a link that takes me to Fabien Vienne. Can I remove this? Bera678 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bera678: I've deleted the page for you. If you mean could you have just removed the link, so as to go back to a blank page, yes, you are free to blank any pages in your own userspace if you want to. However, to me it seems better to get rid of the page completely, so that if you put anything new in your sandbox you won't have an irrelevant link in its history. JBW (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long...

Italian IP removed Mickey Rooney's death details.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

And they've been doing this sort of thing almost all month.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: What on earth is going through their head? I've blocked 151.44.128.0/17 for a couple of months, because as far as I could see that covers all of this vandal's editing in the range you gave, but obviously if you see any that I've missed in the other half of the range then let me know. JBW (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Just came across another range that was doing the same thing 10 days ago.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Barnsley Youth Theatre Page Creation

Hello, I recently tried to create a page for the community group Barnsley Youth Theatre, but this was nominated for speedy deletion by Captain Raju. I understand my reply was rather inconsiderate and for this I apologise, I was upset as I don't understand the reason for deletion however I should not have let this affect the way I talk to administrators. Would you be able to advise me on how the page and anything I have posted breaches the wikipedia policies and guidelines and what I can do to make sure this does not happen? Thank you Oxspring66(talk)

I have answered this on your talk page, where you posted a similar query. JBW (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Hello JBW:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JBW!

Happy New Year!

JBW,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
--MDK-Fan 00:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages. --MDK-Fan 00:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Sigh...

Most of this is in the article although a bit low key and not in the lead.[12][13] Just fyi. Good of you to try to help, but conspiracy theorists probably don't trust Admins here. :) Doug Weller talk 15:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug: Thanks for the links, which were interesting. As for the rest of what you said, you are of course perfectly right, and I don't expect to achieve anything. Why then did I post it? Well, I would say about 5% on the remote off chance that it may produce a result after all, 15% because I get some satisfaction out of thinking that I have done everything I can to help, and it isn't my fault if someone else didn't accept my attempt, and 80% because once I started writing I got carried away, and found myself writing in a kind of "look at how reasonable I'm being, and how only someone totally unreasonable can possibly fail to accept my offer" spirit, more for my own satisfaction, I suppose, than in any expectation of getting through. If you read the first sentence of what I wrote, you will see the tone and spirit in which I originally intended to write the message, which was intended to just be totally dismissive, but it turned out rather differently. Well, it beats watching daytime TV as a way of getting entertainment, in my opinion. 🤭 JBW (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I've no quarrel with anything you've wrote. I love your comment about daytime entertainment. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


@Doug: On the subject of whom conspiracy theorists will trust, it doesn't actually matter what you say to them, because whatever you say just confirms and strengthens their conviction about the conspiracy. My sister, as she became older, became more and more of a conspiracy theorist, about all kinds of things. One example was the great millennium bug, which was going to lead to global devastation on a grand scale. I tried explaining to her that this was just nonsense put about by people who didn't know what they were talking about (such as people who write in the Daily Mail, and people she talked to in the pub) and nobody who knew anything about computers supported any of the apocalyptic scenarios she believed in. Of, course, that was just proof that "they", the computer experts, were all in a great conspiracy to hide the truth from us. Came 1 January 2000, and no global disaster happened. I confess that I was naive enough to think that might weaken her belief that all computer experts were in this great conspiracy, but of course I couldn't have been further from the mark: it just proved that the whole thing was a hoax put about by the conspiracy of computer experts, who had falsely claimed that there was this calamity coming, so that they could get money by pretending to check people's computers for this mythical bug. The fact that right up to 31 December 1999 she had been vigorously advancing the view that computer experts were in a conspiracy to pretend that the great catastrophe wasn't coming did not in any way detract from her ability the next day to vigorously advance the view that computer experts had all along been in a conspiracy to pretend that the great catastrophe was coming. If one thing happens it proves your claim, and if the opposite happens it proves the same claim: that's how the conspiracy-theory mindset works, so, as I said, it makes no difference what you say to them. Saying anything at all has the same effect as saying anything else at all. It's really weird seeing someone one has known all one's life, and who used to be a rational and intelligent person, gradually shifting into that kind of nonsensical thought process. And don't even get me started on her views concerning the great world-wide conspiracy of Muslims, or the great world-wide conspiracy of Catholics. JBW (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
It's sad whenever someone close to you in some way behaves like that. My extended family has always been a bit split. A couple are real bigots, one because of her fundamentalist religious beliefs. I've more or less convinced her to at least stop posting on my FB page hoping I'll come to Jesus. If I want to do that it won't be because someone who says anyone who is different is doomed. I've spent decades arguing with pseudoarchaeologists, you can't convince them. At least here we have our policies and guidelines.
I worked for Birmingham {UK } over the millenium, made a thousand points that night and went home at 3. My teacher wife moonlighted at a Cliff Richard concert and made 200. Had a nice holiday with that. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

New sock? or meat puppet

[14] Doug Weller talk 17:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: One or the other; who cares which? It makes it easier that she openly announced her intention of using meatpuppets, rather than doing it surreptitiously. JBW (talk)
@Doug Weller: My approach in this situation is to give the benefit of the doubt, and work on the assumption that it's a meatpuppet acting in good faith, unaware that what they are doing is contrary to Wikipedia policy, so I give what is intended to be a fairly friendly warning. If, however, they continue in the same way after a warning, I am ready to block very quickly; I don't regard multiple warnings as necessary. JBW (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I've semi-protected the mayoral election article. This may not stop. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Ayaena

Hi JBW. I have contacted the checkusers, both here and on ptwiki. Have a great week. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I've Blocked Permanently

Hi, I've blocked from my bn.wikipedia for unlimited time since 2020. Is there any way to get unblock from my bn.wikipedia? Ashraful Islam Munna (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) bn.wiki is not the only project this user has been indeffed on for socking. You spotted this back in 2020 but chose at the time not to block. Now that they've come back to make trouble, I blocked them + the master - and tagged them, unlike the other projects.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Thanks for letting me know. JBW (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Restoring DJ Many Due To Notability For RIAA Gold Record Certification

Heya JBW, This Is DJ Many I Think I'm Notable Now LOL I Was Certified Gold By The RIAA Source: https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=DJ+Many#search_section Last Month For My Song With https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Turner Here Is A Article About It In Broadway World https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/DJ-Many-YouTuber-Tobuscus-Reach-RIAA-Gold-For-Minecraft-Collab-20231214

Some Articles In The Media About Me.

https://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/how-to-use-your-talent-to-attract-the-attention-of-major-brands.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/03/14/dj-many-twitter-personality-emanuel-thomas.html

https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/DJ-Many-YouTuber-Tobuscus-Reach-RIAA-Gold-For-Minecraft-Collab-20231214

https://www.flavourmag.co.uk/dj-many-releases-single-know-with-pop-legend-donny-osmond/

Gold Record Database Link:

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=DJ+Many#search_section

I Have Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) Please Check Section 3 2601:2C1:4080:7170:64AF:5D08:8478:AAB4 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What does this refer to? is it about some page I once deleted? If so, can you give me the title of the page, so that I can see what you're talking about? The only one of the last 3,000 pages I've deleted that had "many" in its title was "Mass shooting germany". JBW (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
You Deleted This Page Years Ago When I Was A Nobody LOL, I Made A Name For Myself In The Music Now With A Certified RIAA Gold Record :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Many 2601:2C1:4080:7170:64AF:5D08:8478:AAB4 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Brysonthescientist/sandbox

Hi James.

Why did you delete my speedy delete request? 62.6.135.213 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You posted a speedy deletion request on a page, and I deleted the page on which you had posted it. That is to say that I did exactly what you had requested. So what are you complaining about? JBW (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Substituting admin newletter

Hello JBW, I saw that you reverted this edit I made to your talk page. This is supposed to be substituted. I made a mistake while sending out the newsletter which caused it to not get substituted properly. This was brought up at WT:ANEWS so I am going around substituting it manually. You may have noticed that at the bottom of the newsletter, it says Sent by ~~~~. The tildes should be the signature of MediaWiki message delivery. Your talk page is set to archive sections older than 10 days. The newsletter was sent 13 days ago. Since the newsletter doesn't have a timestamp it will not get automatically archived. -- EN-Jungwon 14:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, you could have used a more informative edit summary, especially knowing that your edit was going to trigger an alert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@EN-Jungwon: Thanks for the explanation. I suppose, really, I could have just assumed there was a good reason and left it. JBW (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This is partly my fault. I should have been more careful while sending the massmessage. DreamRimmer has taught me how to use it properly and from now on I'll always send a test message to my sandbox before sending out the newsletter to everyone. Thanks again for your understanding. -- EN-Jungwon 15:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
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.

MDMCK10 (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

NLC

Hi JBW. Thank you for cleaning up National Logistics Corporation. As you're already aware that some COI editors were active on the article and in the process remove the sourced information. Can you please readd "History" and "Controversies" from this version ([15]). It was properly sourced with reliable references. 2A00:23C7:C88C:3E01:302B:2176:FE22:5A58 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done JBW (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi JBW. Can you please remove the "History" and "Controversies" sections from the National Logistics Corporation profile as it is not show the true information and damages the positive profile of NLC, Thanks. Usamanaeem31 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Usamanaeem31: You give two reasons for requesting the change.
  1. You would like the information to be removed because it "damages the positive profile of NLC". Wikipedia is not in the business providing a PR service to organisations by promoting the image of themselves that they wish to have known or by suppressing any information which does not show them in a positive light.
  2. You say that the information is not true. If that is the case, then please explain how it is untrue, and provide reliable sources indicating that it is untrue, and that Dawn, the Express Tribune, the Washington Post, and the New York Times have all got it wrong in their reports which are cited in the article. I am sure that you will understand that we don't and can't reject apparently reliable published reports merely because someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account says so, without giving any reason or explanation as to why we should. That is, of course, the more so when the person in question appears to be editing contrary to the guideline on conflict of interest and has openly stated that they have the aim of protecting the "positive profile" of the organisation in question. JBW (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    Hi, this is not to protect NLC and spread positive information but just to rectify the details and update you with facts that are published in Global Village Space and other media articles given in the links below:
    1. https://www.globalvillagespace.com/national-logistic-cell-ready-to-embrace-new-challenges-of-pakistans-evolving-industrial-and-trade-landscape/#:~:text=GVS%3A%20Why%20was,of%20Pakistan%20Army.
    2. NATIONAL LOGISTICS DAY: National Logistics Cellhttps://www.brecorder.com/news/40183110#:~:text=TEXT%3A%20The%20National%20Logistics%20Cell,human%20development%20and%20much%20more.
    3. Army’s expanding footprint: NLC allowed to bid for state-owned construction firmhttps://tribune.com.pk/story/214881/army%E2%80%99s-expanding-footprint-nlc-allowed-to-bid-for-state-owned-construction-firm
    4. Railways and the NLC https://tribune.com.pk/story/776565/railways-and-the-nlc
    In view of above, you are requested to remove or update the current information about the history & controversies of NLC, please. Usamanaeem31 (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

You reverted my edit on a page of the 1987 Big Ballot. Poggersyaaaatechnical1283 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Poggersyaaaatechnical1283: Because, as I explained in my edit summary, it was a comment about editing the article. Information about the awards known as "The Big Ballot" belongs in the article, but information about editing the Wikipedia article The Big Ballot belongs in the corresponding talk page, Talk:The Big Ballot, not in the article itself. JBW (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


I meant there was no image on that page, So I put a notice there.
And there seems to be a "You've got mail" section basically. Poggersyaaaatechnical1283 (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Poggersyaaaatechnical1283: Yes, I understand why you put the message there, but it was a mistake. If you have information about the subject of an article, then you may add it to that article, but if you have information not about the subject of an article, but about the article itself, such as the fact that the article doesn't have an image and you think it should, then that information belongs not in the article but in the article's talk page. Putting it in the article itself is an easy mistake for anyone new to editing Wikipedia to make; I did it myself in my early days as a Wikipedia editor, so I certainly don't blame you for making the same mistake. Unfortunately it isn't helpful to new editors that there are a few exceptions, but generally you should assume that comments about an article or about editing it don't belong in the article itself until you have enough experience to know what the few exceptions are.
On a completely different matter, I have removed the "you've got email" template which you posted here, because I haven't received any email from you. JBW (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

support with page deletion?

Please could you support with the page you have nominated for deletion? It's my second page... and I have used other wikipedia pages as templates which have far fewer sources. FYI I am not associated with any of the indivduals I write for, simply picked a very specific niche. thanks Journalist0071 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that you would like me to help save the article, then I will happily do so if you can provide evidence that the subject of the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but I have searched for such evidence, and found none. JBW (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Could you please clarify the number of primary sources required? As this is my second article, and I have used a very similar approach as the first - which has been fine. This would be really helpful Journalist0071 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Journalist0071: It's not a matter of the number of sources, it's their quality. Two sources which satisfy the requirements of the notability guidelines are fine; 500 sources, no one which satisfies those requirements don't collectively satisfy them. Obviously you can read the notability guidelines for yourself if you wish to, and haven't yet done so, but the essential points are that we need sources which (a) give substantial coverage to the subject of the article (not brief mentions, mere inclusions in lists, etc) and (b) are independent of he subject (not pages on the subject's own web site, things they have posted themselves on other web sites, web sites of organisations or businesses that they work for, have worked for, own, etc). The assumption that if the sourcing of an article is considered inadequate then the solution is to add a larger number of the same kinds of sources is, unfortunately, one of a number of mistakes commonly made by new editors.
Creating new articles is one of the most difficult tasks for new editors, because of the numerous ways in which it is possible to fail to fulfill one or more of the expected standards. 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) 22:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion & salting

Hello,
I would recommend salting the latin crown article with ECP as it seems to be a copy and paste from a draft at AFC. Protection would allow it to be reviewed normally.

 Thanks and sorry to bother you! Geardona (talk to me?) 23:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, JBW,

Geardona brought to my attention a legal threat on Talk:Latin Crown (Heraldry) in a statement contesting the deletion but then you deleted the article and talk page (understandably so). Could you look at the deleted talk page and let me know if a block or warning is called for? You are so good at leaving personal messages for editors who make mistakes like this one. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. Good to hear from you. Thanks for raising this. I was very unsure what to do about this editor. I saw the legal threat, and was in two minds as to whether to respond to it, but decided not to, as it seemed like a silly empty threat, rather than an indication of a genuine intention of taking legal action. However, reading your message prompted me to look further into the matter, and I discovered that the problems were deeper than I had realised. I knew there were elements of posting fantasy material, but a more detailed investigation of the editor's history, together with web searches for some of the stuff he had posted, convinced me that it isn't just a question of "elements" of fantasy; essentially this is a fantasy-creation-only account, or almost so. I have indef-blocked the account, essentially because the editor is NOTHERE, but I decided that the legal threat should be taken into consideration too. Thanks again for mentioning this, prompting me to reconsider the whole case. Thanks also to Geardona for raising the matter with Liz. JBW (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


User:202.86.216.116

I am Letting you know that this ip 202.86.216.116 is evading an page block that you put on Special:Contributions/103.253.46.0/24 for the page Golam Rabby, Untamed1910 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Untamed1910: Thanks. I thought that was likely to happen, and was expecting to protect the article if it did, but in fact Ad Orientem did so before I go there. JBW (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Binksternet

Hi, I saw that you blocked Binksternet before for ignoring the three revert edit rule, well he's still doing it again, countless of times now since his last block. 2A02:C7C:7B4E:AE00:50AC:4846:9BC9:80D3 (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This is block evasion by User:MariaJaydHicky. She's been using the /40 range of the above IP6 address. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"DESTROY" vandal back again

Recently used 217.131.99.128.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

They've been in that range since at least August.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Got the Cat:unblock killin' me blues

What do you think. I hate consulting the blocking admin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️

This in someone seeking unblock for copyright? I guess he's not ready for unblock. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I confess that if someone accused me of being petty I wouldn't have much of a defence, because there's nothing sensitive there. However, I am probably being influenced by another occasion when I sent what I really thought was obviously a confidential Wikipedia email, and I was then surprised to learn that the person I sent it to passed it on to several other people. I am sure he did it in good faith, but I was pissed off by it, and I think it's influenced my whole feelings about Wikipedia emails ever since. JBW (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I learned the hard way to avoid email. This is why we can't have nice things. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Got your email. Great minds think alike. I think there is nothing helpful in WP:EMAIL. Guess I need to add a disclaimer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Footwiks

Courtesy notification UTRS appeal #84361 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion decline at Henry Banks (merchant)

Hello! While the site itself is indeed a government website, the text archived on it was from Princeton University Press, with the notice Note: The annotations to this document, and any other modern editorial content, are copyright © Princeton University Press. All rights reserved. As the content was only hosted on a government website but didn't originate from them, I believe the speedy deletion rationale is still valid. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: You are absolutely right. Thank you for drawing my attention to my mistake. I have now deleted the article. JBW (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

FYE31 is ban evading again

Hello, I previously posted on your talk page about Canofsoup1, which I believed to be a sockpuppet of a user you previously blocked named FYE31. That sockpuppet account was also blocked, so FYE31 has started a new account, DLCY89. It's clearly the same person. Same fixation on local elections in California, same fixation on removing color bars from infoboxes (they even started an RfC about it), same broken English. Please block this sockpuppet. Thanks! BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the account. JBW (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Catalogic Software

Hello, JBW,

I srr you declined this speedy deletion tagging. I brought up some issues with the tagger, (see User talk:Flux55#Tagging pages for speedy deletion). The incident that concerns me the most is that I found one User page they tagged for CSD U5 speedy deletion but there had never been a User page for this editor, it was only created by the edit Flux55 made asking for it to be deleted! And a patrolling admin deleted the page. I get concerned when very active new editors, who have only been editing for a month, start tagging pages for different forms of deletion. I just thought I'd alert you since it seems like you spend time reviewing CSD-tagged pages. Thanks and I hope you have a great weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. You are quite right, reviewing CSD-tagged pages is one of my common activities. A fairly new editor creating a pointless new user page or user talk page for another editor with no content except a speedy deletion tag already present is, well, I wouldn't say common, but far less uncommon than you might expect. I have never understood why. I've had a very quick look at some of this editor's other editing, and it seems that speedy deletion tagging is something they like doing, sometimes with good reason but sometimes certainly without. I've watchlisted this editor's talk page, and I'll try to keep an eye on them. Incidentally, the editor has said that the account The Generic Fool is also theirs.
You too, have a good weekend, Liz. 🙂 JBW (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Favour to ask

Hello, JBW I have a favour to ask: On my User:Lakenheath Lad page, I wish to have the the word Area exchanged for [the linked] Lakenheath article; as when I did this earlier, I was tagged for possible self-promotion, which is clearly not the case. Can you please do this for me. Thank you. Lakenheath Lad (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Lakenheath Lad: Why did you have links to local bus companies on your (now deleted) userpage, in violation of WP:UP#PROMO? Your userpage should communicate about you, relevant to your editing of Wikipedia. It is not your private website to hold off-wiki bookmarks. I recommend Evernote for that. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


Questions from a sockpuppeteer

Hello, JBW, you deleted the page "Thomas Berthold Schlumprecht" without barring the creator of that page "Bimanmandal626". Why you didn't have any proof for your actions? Nevertheless you called "Bimanmandal626" a "sockpuppet factory" , any proof for that either ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.54.74 (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have never called anyone or anything a "sockpuppet factory", nor even anything like that. There are other comments I could make in response to this message, but I won't bother. JBW (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

About Hammed Kayode Alabi, a recreated article you deleted following the WP:G11 speedy deletion rationale on 21 Jan 2024

@Dfertileplain, Emmanuella643, Joseywales1961, BoyTheKingCanDance, Utopes, Youknowwhoistheman, and JBW: Please see Hammed Kayode Alabi I've had a little look at the references, and it might appear that the subject of the article may pass any or all of tests for notability. I seek your opinion about this. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Shirt58::
  1. The present article is totally different from the one I deleted, and there is no trace of the blatant promotion which was the reason for deletion. In that respect I see no problem with the article.
  2. A quick skim through the article suggests that Hammed Kayode Alabi is probably prominent enough for me to personally be happy with there being an article about him. However, my personal opinion on who is suitable to be the subject of an article is significantly different from Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I took a quick look at the cited references, and I didn't see any which appeared to be both substantial coverage and independent sources. There may or may not be better sources out there, which would confirm that he satisfies the notability guidelines, but I haven't searched for any. JBW (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Would a CU be useful for Utpal Badol Baruah‎?

Obviously I can do it. You can email me if necessary. UTRS appeal was definitely using AI. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I ran one before seeing this post and blocked Mridul Baishya. Spicy (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller and Spicy: Well, that's a new one to me. I had seen only Utpal Badol Baruah and Utpalbaruah. I was borderline for just outright declining the UTRS appeal rather than referring the editor to their talk page, for several reasons, including the blatant AI nonsense. If I had known there was a third account I would certainly have done that. I guess that Spicy's comment answers your question, Doug. Unless either of you objects I will sock-tag all three user pages; it will be much more helpful to any administrator reviewing any future unblock request if they can see all the relevant accounts. JBW (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@JBW That would help. @Spicy do you want to change the block to a CU block? Sigh, now I can go back to dealing with education courses in CT areas, one that has at least one editor editing an article that requires ECP - even the talk page notice to the course there was a violation. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I tend to think CU blocks are overused. I'm not really worried that anyone will unblock the user. No objection to tagging the userpages. Spicy (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller and Spicy: (1) Wow, a CU who agrees with me that CU blocks are overused! Though I suppose I probably get a biased impression, as I only tend to be aware of those CUs who overuse them, and don't notice the absence of a CU block where there could have been one. (2) You don't want to get me started on problems caused by education courses... JBW (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@JBWProbably the most useful part of a CU block where it's unlikely anyone would unblock anyway is to let other users know. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Actually, Doug, while I do think that CU blocks are sometimes overused, it's likely that my attitude to them has been soured by my experiences some years ago, when a particular CheckUser used, in my opinion, to abuse CU blocks just as a way of preventing any other administrator from contesting them. I remember one occasion in particular when I had an email correspondence with him about a block which I thought he had reasonably made, but which later evidence had shown was mistaken. Not only did he refuse to reconsider it, but he made no attempt whatever to address the reasons I gave (which were totally unrelated to CU matters) but just repeatedly said words to the effect of "It's a checkuser block, so I don't have to justify it, and there's nothing you can do about it". Of course not put as crudely as that, but that's what it amounted to. Fortunately I've never known any other CheckUser to do anything remotely like that. JBW (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Pretty bad. I imagine they aren't a CU anymore, or at least hope they aren't. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I prefer not to say anything about that publicly. JBW (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@JBW I understand. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
🤔 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Detroll

I read that as detrol, which is something else entirely. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Goodness, so it is! Maybe I'd better start spelling it as "de-troll" or something. JBW (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
LOL -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

MattA Official and Fraz900

What about these two? Waves at @Doug Weller:. Their unblock requests cry out from the ground. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Thanks. Declined the request, you've showed obvious coordination. Purely for amusement, [16]. No need to get involved. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes CU's show a strange sense of amusement. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra and Doug Weller: I don't know how closely you studied the timings of the editing of the two accounts, but I looked at them closely, and the evidence that it is one person is so blatant as to make denial comical. JBW (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. I see Anglian Learning has been prodded, I don't guess it can just be deleted. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Some would G11, but it does not me my criteria, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. It's unambiguously promotional in intention, but its text isn't grossly promotional. There are administrators who give more weight than I do to perceived intention, as opposed to the actual text of an article, and they might well delete it. JBW (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
One of my problems career wise was I flunked mind-reading in school. Gotta stick to the gross and leave the subtle to those so gifted. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: As far as flunking mind reading is concerned, I've been plagued all my life by a far lower than normal ability to pick up non-verbal and contextual clues as to what people have in mind when it isn't exactly what they say. I wouldn't like to guess how many times I have reaped wrath from people who have been convinced I've been deliberately ignoring what they said, whereas the truth has been that I followed exactly what they said, and honestly didn't realise what they meant. It was not until I was in my fifties that I discovered a name for the neurological condition which gives me this problem. However, having a name for it doesn't make it any less of a problem: even someone who knows about it is still likely to get angry with me when it happens. JBW (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the story of my life. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi JBW

Hi JBW, thanks for the words of advice. I have decided to come back and give Wikipedia a try and I realized there is a lot of maintenance work I can do. You really changed my mind and here I am, now I'm back editing the encyclopedia. WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@WizardGamer775: That's great news. Thanks for telling me. I hope you will now have a successful time contributing to Wikipedia, and please feel welcome to contact me if there's anything you want to ask. Obviously I can't promise to be able to answer everything, but I'll help if I can. JBW (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sturm und Drang

all this over a 31 hour block . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Varials

Would you like to action this request? It's growing mold on the top. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

DahSound

My favorite word from the KJV is dissemble -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I had never associated it with the KJV, but I agree it's a good one. JBW (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra Incidentally, what a pity that it's a WhatsApp group, not an internet site, which means we can't see it and confirm what we have been told about it. JBW (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

How TO Get G11 issue resolved from a Draft

Hi, i wanted to post on Insurancedekho and you have recently marked it for speedy deletion. My Intent is just to add information for the brand not to promote it in other ways. Please suggest the improvements which can help me get it published. Ashutosh2097 (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW/Archive_83&oldid=1210763636"