User talk:Girth Summit

Deleting

Why did you delete my editing in some wiki pages. My corrections were actually correct Xeno7 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Xeno7:, thanks for reaching out. I checked through your history, and found the edits I reverted. In both cases, the reason I gave in the edit summary was that your edits broke the formatting of the infobox - did you actually look at the articles after you hit the 'publish changes' button? Inserting text within an infobox without following the template will cause the whole box to display on screen as a bunch of unformatted text - which is exactly what happened in both of those instances.

Additionally, I'd note that you were adding information in the Greek language with Greek characters. This is English Wikipedia, you should use the English language, or explain (in English) why you are inserting text in Greek (if for example it is a direct quote from a source, which you will then go on to translate).

Out of curiosity, I've just entered the text that inserted into Google Translate: 'MOUNTAIN VASES AND TAKE IT OUR OLD CUSTOMERS WILL BE YOU' inserted a the top of the infobox of a professional basketball player, and 'POWDER AND GINNAKOPOULE BURNS' added to that of a businessman. I had assumed that these were good-faith attempts to improve the article by a new user who didn't know how to format infoboxes, but now I'm not so sure - can you explain what you were doing here, or should I just go ahead and report you to admins for vandalism? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Tidewings

Since Tidewings' talk page ended up (by default) on my watchlist after posting warnings of edit warring there, I have been surreptitiously watching your interaction with him. I must applaud your patience in dealing with him. I have been editing articles on Macedonia (both ancient and modern) for a decade now and some of our practices (like not calling ancient Macedonia a "Greek kingdom" in the first sentence) are based on long-standing consensus and compromise among many editors, both Greek and non-Greek ("non-Greek" includes very few actual Macedonians, although new Greek editors think that we all live on the same avenue in Skopje). Whenever there are real-world events in the Greece/Macedonia copyright infringement dispute, new Greek editors arrive to plant the Greek flag in the first sentence of ancient Macedonia articles again (too often by edit warring). The pattern repeats itself so often that it's predictable and new editors like Tidewings simply look like every other previous one. I just wanted to thank you again for your efforts with Tidewings. Perhaps they will pay off. I see that he has at least expanded beyond editing just the one article and is editing on a second one. Cheers. --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for reaching out. I kind of expected that you might be watching - I know that, if I'd been involved in a dispute with someone, I'd probably have half an eye on their talkpage for a while. I hope you don't take offence at anything I've said in the conversation - if I'm honest, I do think you were a bit bitey, and quick to assume nationalistic motivations. I also think, as I hope I've made clear, that their response to that was disproportionate.

As someone who edits in pseudoscience/medicine areas, I do understand the frustration of seeing new account after new account come along with the same tired old arguments; I know how it can become frustrating. I've been trying to help Tidewings because I genuinely believe in helping new editors get to grips with processes here. We clashed at the article on Feta - I was doing routine anti-vandal work and reverted him, and he reinstated his edit, but at least started a section on the talk page and engaged in discussion - I take that as a sign that they are able and willing to engage in good faith collaboration, if given the right encouragement. We were able to arrive at a compromise that I think actually benefited the article, so I hope that this is an editor who, once they learn how to go about doing things, may be a benefit to the project.

I actually teach on ancient Greece - to nine year olds! So, I have an interest in the area, but am no kind of expert. I appreciate that there is an established consensus position on how we refer to Macedonia on pages like this; I'm not personally seeking to change that, but others are entitled to do so if they have appropriate sources and arguments. I've so far seen neither from Tidewings, but so I have a better understanding of the current position, could you point me to the sources used to support the consensus? I haven't yet read up on the links you provided early in the conversation to discussions back in 2005 - 2010 - if it's all in there then I'll review them, but if there's anything more recent than that I'd be keen to read it.

If nothing else, I'm learning a lot during this discussion! Thanks again for dropping me a note. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I took no offense to anything you said. I do, indeed, bite the new guys and shouldn't. I don't have your patience. As to the matter of calling ancient Macedonia a "Greek" kingdom in the first sentence, if there were specific references used they are buried back in the discussions in the middle of the '00's. The problem is that there are reliable sources that call the ancient Macedonians "Greeks" without a second's hesitation and there are reliable sources that don't call the Macedonians "Greeks" ever or at least without a considerable amount of description of the complexities and differences. The truth is that the ancient Macedonians, at least before Alexander, are probably better described as "almost, but not quite Greeks" or "barely Greeks". There were ancient authors who unambiguously distinguished them from Greeks and there were ancient authors who included them as Greeks (so I always get a chuckle whenever a newbie claims that they have command of the ancient sources--that usually only means that they're a native speaker of Greek, not that they're an expert on the ancient sources). So the compromise that has been worked out amongst (almost) all the long-time editors of these articles, both Greek and non-Greek, is that the first sentence should not make a commitment to the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, but that the complexities should be clearly described in the article--both the similarities and differences, the ways they acted like Greeks and the ways they didn't, etc. If a reader gets through one of these articles they understand the closeness of the Macedonians to the Greeks and that eventually the Macedonians merged into the Greeks. The reader can make their own decision about when the Macedonians became Greek without being forced to adhere to the "Greek" POV from the very beginning. I hope that clarifies the situation. That compromise was probably reached on another of the half dozen articles directly associated with ancient Macedonia and not necessarily in the history of Talk:History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). But the interested editors have applied that compromise throughout the ancient Macedonian suite of articles (although there may be one or two that have slipped through the net). --Taivo (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Then there is the political reason why the compromise was reached: putting "Greek" prominently in the first sentence has nothing whatsoever to do with fairly describing ancient Macedonia and everything to do with planting a Greek flag right up front and poking (modern) Macedonia in the eye with the flagpole. --Taivo (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That does actually sound like a workable and sensible compromise to me - I agree that if it's contested, we should aim to present (and attribute) both sides without taking a view. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User talk:198.97.67.51.

I have not edited Dark Matter and do not recall even reading the page. Hence I have no dispute regarding anything there. 198.97.67.50 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - if you look at your contributions, you'll see that Dark Matter was indeed the last article edited from your IP address before this talk page. It's possible that you share your IP address with other users - I'd recommend that you create an account in that case, to avoid getting messages intended for other people who share your IP address. (Also, if the IP address ends up blocked because of vandalism coming from it, you would be able to use your account despite the block). Hope that helps, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete the Acacia 85 Page

Enjoy your deletion power from Yorkshire, England.

The citation was one book, which posses other citations to multiple sources. We have photos that are entirely in our possession as they were taken by our lodge, paid for by our lodge and maintained and kept and preserved by our lodge. Who do we cite? The book is ours, written by a member of our lodge and owned by our lodge. We cited the book and you boo-hoo it.

Delete the page and finish the conversation and debate about it. The rules of Wikipedia are to assume good faith, but how can a person when someone from on the other side of the world assumes a book is inaccurate or that a photo is not theirs?

No wonder so much foolish or inaccurate information is on Wikipedia......it is too cumbersome, too burdened, too entrenched.....with its "quality assurance" rules. The very same that lead to accurate images and information to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch1640 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Finch1640, thanks for reaching out, and I'm sorry if the nomination has upset you - this is not personal, I have no doubt about your good faith, and I have made no criticism about the book (except to note that it is quite old). This is about WP:NOTABILITY, not the veracity of your source. If you read the guidelines at WP:GNG, you will see what is required to determine the notability of a subject - significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.

I have zero deletion power - the notice is to tell you that I have started a conversation about deletion. If, and only if, that conversation establishes a consensus to delete, then an administrator will delete the page. You can join that conversation and add your thoughts. The surest way to avoid deletion will be to find some more sources which are reliable, independent of the organisation, and give it significant coverage - if you find those, I'll happily change my vote to keep.

Finally, my geographic location is utterly irrelevant. Notability is established by published sources only, not by local knowledge. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is an article that was written by our lodge by the Greenwich Free Press. And how do I cite sources for a photo that was taken 100 years ago and paid for by Acacia Lodge? There are in our possession.

https://greenwichfreepress.com/around-town/going-strong-after-200-years-acacia-lodge-lodge-keeps-masons-tradition-alive-in-greenwich-80834/

Here is our website:

https://lodge085.ctfreemasons.net/

Here is a picture of me being installed as Worshipful Master of the lodge, holding its charter from 1858.....if you want me to cite other sources I will literally have to cite the vital records at Town Hall to prove that these people existed. This is all so frustrating.

The lodge and Freemasonry in Greenwich has existed since 1763 in a number of historic buildings, which were referenced. Many of our members were notable people with distinguished histories.

You can purchase a facasimile printing of our history book here: https://www.amazon.com/History-Masonry-Greenwich-Connecticut-1763-1926/dp/1258186152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1548429501&sr=8-1&keywords=masonry+in+greenwich

Or an original, first edition here: https://www.amazon.com/Masonry-Greenwich-Connecticut-1763-1927/dp/B00R0PYO8C/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1548429536&sr=8-3&keywords=masonry+in+greenwich

Clearly there are numberless pages of information on literally any topic on Wikipedia, just Acacia Lodge and its brief, fascinating history is not appropriate.

Please just delete the page and and we'll on from this episode.

Hi ARM.Finch, thanks for reaching out. Are you the same person who posted earlier while logged in as Finch1640, or are you two different people?

As I explained above, I am not disputing the existence of this lodge - rather, I am questioning its notability. If you read the links I provided above, you will see how notability is established on Wikipedia. Websites, articles and books produced by an organisation are not considered when assessing that organisation's notability - we look for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All you have to do to establish notability is provide such independent sourcing.

Should I take your request to delete the page seriously? This question is important, as an author-requested deletion is sufficient grounds for what we call a 'speedy delete' here - in other words, the ongoing discussion at AfD would not be necessary, and an administrator could simply delete the page. If this is seriously what you want, I will make the necessary request. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how citing an independent source is not notable enough, but I understand. Since a Probate Judge of Greenwich, Frederick A. Hubbard wrote the book, who also wrote, "Other Days in Greenwich," was a member of our lodge the source is not independent. Also, the fact that it was written in 1926, seems to have raised questions as well (unfortunately that is the time in which he lived and therefore he could only have written the book during that time period). He wrote the book to commemorate the lodge history and the building of the new masonic temple on 28 Havemeyer Place which was built by distinguished New York and national architects such as Robert Huston and Frederick E. G. Smith. Our first Worshipful Master, Luke A. Lockwood, was a pioneer of his day and even was a friend of King Edward VII, and single-handed wrote the entire jurisprudence for the Grand Lodge of Connecticut which is still in effect for today.

Yes, please just go ahead and delete it. Never using Wikipedia again.

Hi User:Honeywell1640, are you the same person who previously posted here as ARM.Finch and as Finch1640? Sorry to ask again, but since you seem to be using different accounts it's hard to be sure. The article was written by Finch1640, and so the request to delete would need to come from that account.

We generally need significant coverage in two independent sources to establish notability. So far, I can't see any independent sources - you have provided the lodge's website, a book written by a member, a local newspaper article written by a member - but nothing independent of the subject of the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I am Finch1640, please delete the page. Also, the newspaper article was written by Leslie Yaeger, she is not a member of our lodge. She is the owner and chief editor of the Greenwich Free Press. She is entirely independent and wrote her own story...I was using an old account (ARM.Finch). Pardon the confusion. Please delete the page and be done with this.

@Honeywell1640: Thanks for confirming. You should be aware that there are specific rules around operating multiple accounts at the same time, and there are steps that you have to take to avoid being accused of sockpuppetry that would likely see your account blocked. Please see WP:MULTIPLE for details.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding about the Greenwish Free Press article - above, you said Here is an article that was written by our lodge by the Greenwich Free Press - I guess you meant that it was written about your lodge rather than by them. If you want to make the case for notability, you could mention this source at the AfD discussion. It's a local paper that writes advertorials for payment, so it would not be given as much credence as history book or a national newspaper, but it might carry some weight.

If you are sure you want me to say that you have requested deletion, would you mind logging in as your Finch1640 account and confirming? I don't have WP:CU privileges, so I am not able to confirm that the two accounts are collocated. I believe you, but need to do due diligence before saying that the author of the article has requested deletion. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

HI

I am new to this. How do I go about updating an existing pages information and photo?

Hi Allmsmusic, thanks for reaching out. First, quick tip - when you leave a message on a talk page, please sign your name - that way I don't have to go into the page history to find out who left it! You can do that by typing four tildes (they look like this: ~ ), or by pressing the button at the bottom of the editing browser called Sign your talk page posts.

Right, how to go about updating information and photos... there's a lot to discuss. I think that the best thing I can do is to put a welcome template on your talk page, which will include a lot of useful links for you to read. I can see that you've been reverted a few times, I'll summarise what the problems were:

• I reverted you because you removed some content without explaining why; the content you remove actually included part of a reference to a cited source, so the content didn't make sense after your change.
• The next set of edits you made (which were reverted) removed some text that was sourced (that means that it had references to published information, so that readers can verify that it was true), and you replaced it with text that was unreferenced - you didn't provide any sources. You have to provide reliable sources for any information you add - you can't just add stuff you know, you have to show where the information comes from so that other people can check that you're right.
• I can't really work out what you were doing with the next set of edits - looks like you added a load of stuff, then you removed it, but you left a couple of random characters on the page, so someone reverted you again.

As for updating images, I'm not an expert on that. There's a load of information at WP:Images, but I can't really tell you too much about the process. One thing you have to be aware of is WP:COPYVIO - you must not upload images that you do not own the rights to, unless you can prove that they have been released for free use under an appropriate license, you can't just grab a picture from a website and put it on a page.

I'll put the welcome template on your talk page now. Long story short, there's quite a lot of ground to cover - I'd recommend starting slow, and building up your editing skills and familiarity with policies and guidelines as you go along. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear

Why did The Essential Adam Ant got deleted for it had a Allmusic review source. Ben2719941 (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ben2719941, thanks for reaching out. Did you read the link I left in the edit summary (NALBUM)? The criteria there call for multiple non-trivial published works. The AllMusic reference is one such review - another such review would be necessary to demonstrate notability. I had a look before redirecting, but I couldn't find any. I've reinstated the redirect for now - if you can find another suitable review, then we could undo the redirect, but please don't reinstate the content before that. Let me know if you'd like me to check any sources for you to discuss whether or not they are suitable. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay then so if I found a second album review for The Essential Adam Ant, the album will be able to go back on Wikipedia?

Ben2719941 _(talk) 13:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - yes, if you can find another significant review, I would be happy to reassess the notability. Note the requirements set out in the link I gave you though - it has to be non-trivial (a proper review, not just a summary or a brief description), it has to be independent (not published by the record company, not a press release reproduced in a magazine, not on a commercial site selling the album) and it has to be in a reliable source (not WP:UGC for example). I'll be happy to take a look at anything you find.

By the way, you shouldn't put my signature after your comments then modify it. You can sign your posts easily by either typing four tildes (~), or by clicking on the 'Sign your posts on talk pages' button at the bottom of the editing window. See also WP:THREAD for information about threading talk page posts. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Will Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars get this sent to him as well because he have been deleting other people sources from Wikipedia when people add The Essential Dragon. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} Here is his user page if you do talk to him. Thanks Ben

Yes can you please take a look what you found for The Essential Adam Ant, I saw someone add Amazon review on The Essential Mi-Sex is that allowed an Amazon review?

Thanks Ben User talk:Ben2719941

Ben2719941

Hi Girth. Unfortunately, Ben is one of those well-meaning but just-will-never-get-it editors. I have been fixing his poor editing since October 2016 when he had user name User:Ben271994. I've tried patience and instruction to get him to learn the ropes but it's been over two years now and his work is only minimally better. For some reason, his recent obsession is creating articles for any album in The Essential series. Typical "sources" he adds are primarily retail and database sites (iTunes, JBHiFi, Spotify, CDUniverse, Discogs). When I've added notability tags to his creations, he often just adds more of the same while removing the tag. I am concerned that he may fall under the WP:CIR umbrella because after all this time he still doesn't understand what notability means despite numerous attempts to explain it to him and his comments when communicating with other has been at times nonsensical, not to mention still not knowing how to thread or sign his posts on talk pages. By the way, I've redirected the Essential Mi-Sex article as well. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

Hello Girth Mr Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars didn’t know that The Essential Human Nature was still On Wikipedia without a review. He keep it there and he didn’t get rid of it until later. He has been telling people off on Wikipedia for no reason. If you seen his messages in my talk page. He has been telling me off for the last whole week. I’m just letting you know what’s been going on. Thanks Ben and I have been deleting bad comments from Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars on my talk page because it have hurt my feelings.

Hi Girth Summit

Hello good sir Girth Summit my name is TheMusicMan1994, I'm brand new to Wikipedia, so what are the rules for edding? Please let me know Thanks (talk) 8:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs)

I suspect from your editing history that you are the same person as User Ben2719941, and have opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ben2719941. Pinging @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: to inform them. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you find something out to the case?. Please let me know. TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Good Sir Wikipedia have sent me a Getting Started page it means I'm new.

TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I sent a message to TheMusicMan94 on GMail, he told me that Ben2719941 and TheMusicMan94 are two different people, one name is Ben and the other one is named Thomas.

This has become a tragic comedy. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

'I e-mailed the other guy to ask whether he was me, and he told me that he wasn't. He's got a different name and everything.' Seems legit. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

So do you believe me when TheMusicMan94 and Ben2719941 are two different people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am required by policy to assume good faith; let's say though that in a case like this I have my doubts. It seems improbable to me that the first thing a new editor would do after creating an account would be to revert a redirect from an obscure article, and then leave messages on the talk pages of the two editors who had performed the redirect. This discussion is pointless however - there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation, checkusers will investigate behaviour, IP addresses, geographic locations and whatever else it is they do. When they reach a decision, they will take the appropriate action, and I will be content to abide by their judgement. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Have they find something yet, how long will it take do you know? If they find nothing then what will happen to the page? Have a nice day today. Thanks TheMusicMan94 TheMusicMan94 (talk • contribs) Afternoon Girth Summit, I have apologize to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I just let you know. Ben2719941Ben2719941 (talk • contribs)

Afternoon Girth Summit How Come The Essential Waylon Jennings Got Deleted For? IdreamofHorses check it and it was okay. Why Did It Got Removed For? The Essential Johnny Cash Didn’t Get Removed when someone added The Essential Johnny Cash. Ben2719941 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ben2719941 - first, please note that the article has not been deleted, it has been redirected - there is an important difference. Before I answer your question, can you confirm that you have read the edit summary I left when I created the redirect, and that you have read WP:NOTABILITY? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Please allow my name to be added to Green Jelly

I joined this band today via invitr from Bill Manspeaker Gaddyman117 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gaddyman117 - I just left a note on your talkpage. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Questions about a low profile edit war

Hello Girth Summit, I was about to ask your tutoring in order to become member of the Counter Vandalism Unit but I see that your only slot is already occupied. I'll wait for your slot to become free again. In the meantime I have some questions I hope some admin can help me to answer.

In the last few weeks there seems to be a low profile edit war on some items with IPA (International phonetic alphabet) transcriptions of Italian names. It seems that at least two groups of sockpuppets are competing on this topic. In particular, a user called Miaowmiaowmew (blocked for abusing multiple accounts) added the IPA transcription on some articles, providing the related sources (which I verified were valid). A couple of weeks later, other users (also subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting, see this for reference) have modified the transcription and removed the sources without providing alternative references. Me and other users and admins have repeatedly restored the versions with sources but, again, other sockpuppets have restored the version without sources. See the revision history of Stefano Pescosolido or Davide Sanguinetti for example. The suggestion I received from Favonian is to open a discussion somewhere to get a "paper trail" in case of further reverts.

My questions are: If I restore the version with the sources am I really doing something wrong? Do I risk of being involved in edit wars? Which is the most appropriate place to open a discussion and find a consensus on this issue? is a consensus really necessary since on the one hand we have a version with reliable sources and on the other no source at all? Thanks a lot in advance, Horst Hof (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Horst Hof - good questions. I'll look into this more fully once I've got a bit of time (hopefully later today), but briefly... any kind of repetitive reverting can be seen as disruptive, but it sounds like there is a consensus version that you are protecting, so the way forward might be page protection - has anyone discussed or suggested that on these pages already? I'd have thought an administrator would be willing to consider it in this case to stop the disruption.

With regard to the CVUA training, my slot is technically filled, but my current student isn't very active and it's not absorbing very much time at the moment. If you are still interested, I'd be willing to get you started on it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick answer. Concerning the CVU training, Yes! I'm still interested and ready to start as soon as you have a bit of time to dedicate to me.

Concerning the edit war issue, actually the sockpuppets are not targeting a single page but at least 15 or 20. It is a systematical action, sockpuppets appear in waves of four or five and make four or five edits each.

Check the edits of this group and this other group for example. Sometimes they also seem to operate as unlogged IPs (ranges 5.170.0.0/18 and 151.48.0.0/16). Horst Hof (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Horst Hof OK, I've looked into this a bit more now. These have all been identified as socks of a blocked user; as such, you are safe to revert them under WP:3RRNO, criterion 3. Note that criterion 4 allows you to do as many reverts as you have to to stop obvious vandalism, but you need to tread carefully there - these edits are not, in and of themselves, obvious vandalism - the problem is the socking, bludgeoning and disruption, so you'd need to be confident that it was a sock.

You say it's 15 - 20 pages that are the sockmaster's targets - I assume it's always the same ones? I don't see any reason why protection couldn't be applied to all of the pages in question, but there might be other solutions like a range block that could be applied. I think that the place to gain a consensus for best way forward would be WP:ANI - it seems to me to fit the description of a chronic, intractable problem. If you start a new section there, providing links to the SPI cases and diffs of the problematic edits (just a few examples, noting that there are lots more and they're always the same), administrators there would able to discuss the options and hopefully arrive at a solution.

With regard to the CVUA training, I'll start the wheels moving now. I'll set you up a page for us to work on, and will ping you from there. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies - I've just re-read your initial message - you say the sourced IPA transcriptions were added by a blocked sockmaster, and then changed to an unsourced version by another blocked sockmaster - I missed the first bit. I now see why Matthew hk is suggesting removing the IPA transcription until consensus is reached - that way, you are not 'favouring' either of the blocked socks. I think that technically that would be the right course of action, but it would be a bit of a pain to go through all the pages doing that - I'd probably just go to ANI now, explain the situation, and wait for advice on the best approach. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank's a lot again. Happy to start training. :-) Horst Hof (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit, I am going to open the discussion on the topic above on ANI, it is my firt time I open a discussion there. Would you be so kind to revise what I'm going to write? Here is the text I'm going to post:

________

In the last few weeks there seems to be a low profile edit war on some items with IPA (International phonetic alphabet) transcriptions of Italian names. It seems that at least two groups of sockpuppets are competing on this topic. In particular, a user called Miaowmiaowmew (blocked for abusing multiple accounts) added the IPA transcription on some articles, providing the related sources (which I verified were valid). A couple of weeks later, other users (also subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting, see this for reference) have modified the transcription and removed the sources without providing alternative references. Me and other users and admins have repeatedly restored the versions with sources but, again, other sockpuppets have restored the version without sources. See the revision history of Stefano Pescosolido or Davide Sanguinetti for example.

The sockpuppets of the group of Ragaricus seems targeting specifically the edits of Miaowmiaowmew on italian personalities. It is a systematical action, sockpuppets appear in waves of four or five and make four or five edits each then disappear.

Check the edits of this group and this other group for example. Sometimes they also seem to operate as unlogged IPs (ranges 5.170.0.0/18 and 151.48.0.0/16).

I asked an opinion to some admins and experienced users and they suggested to open a discussion to get a "paper trail" in case of further reverts. In case of future further sockpuppets waves, what is the best way to deal with this issue?

________

Do you think it is clear enough, should I add more diffs or more clarifications? Thans a lot in advance. Horst Hof (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I think that's pretty clear. I'd suggest that you mention the names of the other users and admins who have been involved by giving them a courtesy ping - that will notify them that the discussion is going on, so they can give their thought. Also, make sure you notify Miaowmiaowmew and Ragaricus on their talk pages when you open the discussion - there is a template you can use for this, it will be displayed when you create the new section at ANI - copy it, and paste it onto their talk pages, with your signature. Even though they're blocked for socking, you still need to notify them. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again, I will. Horst Hof (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Horst Hof - you might have noticed that the discussion you started at WP:ANI has been archived without a resolution. That's a bit disappointing, but I guess it indicates that there's not anything immediately obvious that can be done outside the normal actions of blocking socks and/or requesting page protection for the pages in question. We'll cover page protection in the CVUA course, but essentially pages that are subject to repeatd vandalism from multiple different accounts/IPs can be given different levels of protection, so that only auto-confirmed users (or even only admins in serious cases) can edit them. If the disruption continues on those pages, we'll apply for protection. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit, thanks for letting me know and for you comment. It would seem to me quite reasonable to restore the sourced version, but the way proposed by Matthew hk is also a viable and valid solution.

Concerning this topic (italian IPA) I've seen a new episode this morning. If you have a bit of time, please compare this Special:Diff/881761386 to this Special:DIff/877241290, don't you think that wordings, style, etc. are absolutely the same? The edit of the anonymous IP (5.170.x.x again) is related to this dispute.

It's a since couple of months or more that there is an uncommon high rate of activity releated to italian IPA (and less frequently spanish IPA).

A couple of weeks ago there was at least four SPI reports concurrently open related to this topic (Lascava, Viviocon, Ragaricus and Iuscaogdan), and it seems to me very unusual for such a sectorial topic.

Horst Hof (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

​Again about this subject, Favonian left a message on my talk page asking my opinion on recent edits coming from the same IP range. Just wanted to let you know in case you want to leave comment too. Horst Hof (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Horst Hof To be honest, the linguistics discussion is beyond me, and I don't have any view on what it 'right', so I'll limit my response to the approach we should take in order to stop disruption. Despite the fact that the initial pronunciation was added by a sock, if they are in line with the consensus at WP:WikiProject_Linguistics#Nasal_allophones_inconsistency/incoherence_in_some_Help:IPA_pages this page then it's OK to keep them. If those pages are the target of disruptive editing from multiple new accounts and IPs, the correct approach is probably to apply for Page Protection. We will cover that in a future part of the CVUA training, but it's something you can do through Twinkle - select the option 'RPP', and ask for temporary semi-protection; do it on as many pages as necessary to stop the disruption. Pinging @Favonian: as a courtesy as they were involved in this. cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you/ Ok?

Thanks for bringing up some issues with the new article SCPS International. I now tried to fix them. The problem is that the company is highly interesting, but one of the most difficult to “catch”. I’ve got to know them (with quite some pain) when I lost against their teams in court multiple times (I’m a lawyer in Europe), and did some research. This was my motivation to write the text, just for your info. But I think we are fine now. Are we? Thanks again for your efforts. Klaus Bells (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Klaus Bells, thanks for reaching out. I've reinstated the page curation tags - I'll outline my reasoning.

• The writing still comes across as quite promotional. Phrases like 'to meet the challenges of the digital age', 'providing their clients a complex range of services at the crossroads of different job profiles' and 'one of the world’s largest international network for advertising agencies and promotion' are quite jargony, and read like they've come out of some promotional material. Our aim is to write neutrally, neither trying to puff the company or disparage it - simply to say what it is that they do.
• The references could be improved, although I appreciate that might be difficult if there is not much written about them. However, you could start by putting page numbers into the references to books - that makes it a lot easier for reviewers and readers to verify the assertions you've made.

I hope that's helpful. CheersGirthSummit _(blether) 17:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I do fully understand your point. Since English is not my mother tongue, maybe we could solve the problem together, since I doubt that there are many SCPS experts out there.

• You could re-write the above mentioned content in a neutral way. The content ist not wrong, but you as a native speaker will have a better feeling what sounds neutrally and what not. So you could take the meaning and put it in your own words. I am not in love with my writing or the company ;-) So just go ahead :-)
• Regarding the references I will try the best I can. However, these guys are so much into protecting what they’re doing that we will not find much randomly online.

Even I as a lawyer in Europe heard first about them after losing several cases which normally our side would have big chances to win. So I asked myself, who are these weird guys. I learnt they were from SCPS International. So I’m far, far away from promoting them, rather I “fear” them. My motivation is to tell the world that they exist. We’re talking of really tough guys here. So I will try my best to find better literature, but pls. don’t expect too much. It would be great if we could fix this thing together. It’s a short text, I am sure you can de-PR it quickly. I also see no need of long discussions since I am not a “stakeholder” in this and definitely also do not want PR language, especially not for them. Thanks for your efforts! Klaus Bells (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

History of India

I misspelled one word on the lead, but rest of the edit was constructive. You can check again. All recent edits to lead are new, since this month, I am just contributing further to improve it. Also see talk page where I have commented. 112.134.66.239 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In fairness, it wasn't so much of a misspelling as removing a chunk of text that rendered the sentence meaningless - that caught my eye, and so I reverted. However, I see that it was a genuine mistake rather than a test/vandalism, so I apologise for performing a wholesale revert rather than simply fixing the mistake. I see that discussion is ongoing on the talk page, and have no view on the content dispute. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Training Team.

Hello, I was looking for a counter-vandalism trainer until I stumbled upon you. I wanted to know if you had an available spot for me, I know it says 0 but I don't have any other choice since the time is too far apart from the others. And there is only an hour difference between our time zones. Please let me know. AryanTheArticleArtist (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi AryanTheArticleArtist - thanks for reaching out. I've got two students on the go right now, and so I don't have a huge amount of free time; however, if you would be prepared to accept that we will have to go slowly due to my time constraints, I would be willing to take you through the course. Would you be happy with that? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, yes, thank you for replying to me. I will be more than happy. AryanTheArticleArtist (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

AryanTheArticleArtist OK. Before we begin, I've got a question, and a recommendation.

Question - can you explain your thinking with regards to this revert? You didn't leave an edit summary (this is something we will discuss in the training), but I'd like you to explain in your own words what you thought was wrong with the edit.

Recommendation - you have a number of anti-vandal statements / userboxes on your talk page - nothing wrong with that, I've got a few myself! However, a couple of them are quite aggressive - 'this user screws vandals', describing yourself as a fierce warrior. Your userpage is your own, and I'm not going to tell you what to put on there; however, I'd advise you to tone that down a notch. Most vandals do what they do because they crave attention - they want us to take them seriously, to treat it like a battle. The best approach is to treat it more like a mundane housekeeping task - they make a mess, we clean it up (while blocking their accounts so they can't make a mess again). We'll do more about this during the course, but that would be my recommendation. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

GirthSummit, please see this. The IP was right, and was subsequently blocked unjustly. I happen to know this IP, who has been a valuable Wikipedia contributor for years. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies - that is indeed troubling. AryanTheArticleArtist - the series of reverts you performed there was not removing vandalism. The IP editor left an edit summary saying that they were removing editorializing (see MOS:EDITORIALIZING), which is indeed what they were doing - the material they removed was unsourced opinion, they were right to remove it. Even if they had been wrong though, that was a content dispute, and you both edit warred over it - you yourself went over WP:3RR, and you are probably lucky that you weren't blocked yourself. To prevent a repeat occurrence, I suggest that you perform no further reverts of any edits on any page until we have been through the basics of what vandalism is, and how you should respond to it. Please indicate here that you will agree to that, and I will set up the training page for you. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I've just taken a closer look at this, and read through the discussion on the IP's talk page. I'll be frank with you, I think you could have handled that better. We do all make mistakes occasionally (I know I have) but when you realise you were in the wrong, you need to apologise - immediately, and fulsomely.

There is some suggestion at that talk page that this might not be your first account. I know nothing about that, and am prepared to assume good faith, but I'd like you to declare to me now whether you have ever had another account. Do that, and confirm that you will stop reverting until we've covered the basics, and I'll be happy to proceed. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, dear Girth Summit, I have taken time to read everything that you have to say, and I cannot agree more to it. I 100% understand the current situation and my mistake. Now, I will do what is necessary to avoid these mistakes.

I will agree to not revert anything until I have completed your course and have understood all of the important things regarding vandalism.

I do not own another account on Wikipedia, this is my first.

I will also take your advice on my talk page, I have removed the screw and the fierce warrior statement.

I will take any advice that you give to make this right, I know that you know better and you are very experienced. I apoligise for any things I may have caused that where wrong.

Doing wrong things are not my intention at all. AryanTheArticleArtist (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, good. I'll set your training page up this afternoon - in the meantime, you could read through WP:Vandalism carefully; also take a look at WP:THREAD, which discusses how to thread comments on talk pages to aid effective communication. I'll drop a note on your talk page when the training page ready to go. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You are doing a very good job keeping this place clean keep it up

.

Cedric White (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Cedric White GirthSummit _(blether) 17:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I do not know what to give you. You are a good teacher. I just read your and Aryan's whole training conversation. Good job man. Sincerely, Masum Rezatalk 09:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Masumrezarock100 - much appreciated! Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask you something. You said that you worked in US and other countries. Does that mean you travel across the globe?
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 23:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I used to, Masumrezarock100. I worked in marine geophysics - so, I used to go wherever the work was. Basically, I would use sonar techniques to map the seabed, or monitor engineering works - for oil and gas projects, offshore wind farm installation, telecommunications cable installation, harbour construction, etc. I did that for about fifteen years, and it was exciting to begin with - flying off to Brazil, India or Japan at a moment's notice because a job came up. You can only do that for so long though - I got fed up of airport lounges, having to miss important dates, never being able to say for sure I'd be there for a friend's wedding/birthday/whatever. So, about five years ago I quit my job and went back to uni - I became a primary school teacher. The pay isn't great, but I can't think of anything better to do with my time than having a serious conversation with a 9-year olds - they can always surprise you! Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

PhoeusLaw

Hello girth I added some content in biocentrism(ethics) and you reverted it Could you please explain your actions? PhoebusLaw (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi PhoebusLaw, thanks fr reaching out. First of all, when you leave a comment on a talk page (either an article talk page, or another editor's talk page), you should use the 'new section' option (unless of course you are replying or commenting on an existing discussion). You can find more information about talk page discussions at WP:THREAD.

Your contribution seemed to be your own opinions and thoughts about the subject - that would be original research, which is not permitted on articles. If the content can be attributed to a reliable source, you should cite that source after the assertions.

I'm going to put a welcome template on your talk page, which will include a number of links that will allow you to find out more about how editing works on Wikipedia articles. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Marvin Bracy-Williams name change source below

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/os-sp-orlando-apollos-marvin-bracy-williams-1026-story.html

"Marvin Bracy ... Bracy (5-9, 181), who now goes by Marvin Bracy-Williams, was one of six players assigned to the Apollos’ roster, the league announced Friday."

OK, that looks as though it might warrant a page move. I would do it for you, but unfortunately, because I'm in the UK, I can't read the source myself (quite a lot of American newspapers block access to their websites to European readers), so I can't check this for myself. You can request a change at [[1]], or you could raise it on the article talk page and suggest the page be moved (You won't be able to move it yourself when editing as an IP - you'd need an account with auto-confirmed status). GirthSummit _(blether) 15:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - made a request directly on article page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marvin_Bracy#Requesting/suggesting_page_move_due_to_name_change