Jump to content

User talk:Deepfriedokra

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gcheng94 (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 31 January 2019 (→88rising Protections: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Crazy as it might seem to you and me, new conversations are added below the older ones.
NOTICE-- NEW MESSAGES NOT LEFT AT THE BOTTOM OF MY TALK PAGE WILL BE REVERTED. Hence-->

User talk:Dlohcierekim/boatramp

first Article

Hi Dlohcierekim, in Aprile I tried to write my first Article in Wikipedia English, yet it was deleted... now I have new content but I'm not sure if it will be considered promotional Also (By the way the new content is translated from an Article I've already created in Wikipedia Arabic)of course I couldn't translate it directly through Wikipedia tools as I'm a new editor ... what do you suggest me to do ?? thank you in advance Geegooo (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated disruption

User Mayerroute5 is returning again and again to make the same disruptive edit for nearly the 20th time since May in spite of being repeatedly warned and even being blocked once. The pages are 2018 Indian Premier League, Template:2018 IPL match 58 and Template:2018 IPL match 59. He is constantly breaking the project guidelines and conventions and isn't ready to accept them. I have reported about this in the Administrator's thread earlier as well, and now I request again for some action to be taken here as it is becoming difficult to control his disruption! Cricket246 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing visibility of an edit

Hi, would you be able to remove the visibility of this edit which contains a pretty vile personal attack? Also, could you direct me to the location I should report edits like this in the future to have them hidden? Thanks. LynxTufts (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case rename

A few months ago you did some moves at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMZahidIqbal which (probably accidentally) caused the case history to be deleted (see [1]). I have just restored it, and I'm just letting you know that I undid your action per WP:ADMINACCT. If this wasn't an accident and you meant to delete the history, please let me know. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Исмаил_Рагимов

Two weeks? His latest block, which he returned ffrom only four days ago, was for two weeks, and all he has ever done here is add totally fake economic data on multiple articles. For example this previously undetected piece of vandalism on SOCAR, the article about the state oil company of Azerbaijan (note how he just changed the date in the ref, to make it look like it was sourced...). So I feel it's reasonable to expect an indefinite block... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: I will consider it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:1853:1C00:9D67:C3F5:8F37:ACFB

Can you maybe revdel these edits as BLP violations? I saw that youre active. Editorzszs (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorzszs: Sorry, no. Does not rise to level requiring revdel.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you.★Trekker (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Hi Dlohcierekim, Hope all is well, When you're not busy could you revdel this please, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marcia Parker SF/sandbox

This somehow got recreated, speedy tags included. I'm guessing they were editing it and hit save after you had deleted the first copy. Home Lander (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @Home Lander: She recreated after I deleted.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dlohcierekim i need your help to understand this issue

i am eager to know that this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabar_Koti was nominated for deletion on January 22 2011 and The result of the discussion was delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sabar_Koti but why it is still live while it Fails WP:MUSIC & i have doubt on User:GSS who created this may be for paid editor and keeping the page live, because his second page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yudhvir_Manak&action=edit&redlink=1 recently deleted due to promotional & non notable. He have also moved may pages & many of them still are non notable https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&user=GSS&type=move i think he is playing money game behind his white work (contribution) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Act345 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Act345: Thanks for your note. As there was only one "delete", it was a WP:soft delete and thus treated as a expired WP:PROD. It was subsequently recreated with improvements, thus making it inelligible for WP:CSD#G4, inappropriately retaged for ProD, and appropriately detagged. As deletion now requires disccussion, the best route/only route would be another WP:AFD.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Knight (Greensboro) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bill Knight (Greensboro). Since you had some involvement with the Bill Knight (Greensboro) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing blocked for my account ; for what purpose?

Hello, I think you blocked me from editing for spamming purposes... I do not really understand what made me seem to be a spammer. Could you give me the reasons that made you restrict my account if you please? Alain02 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is your blocked account? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alain02: One might surmise you are evading a block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: I just wanted to know the purposes that led you to blocking my account so that I can know what not to do while editing an article. Forgive my ignorance, I haven't been editing for too long.
Well, @Alain02:, off hand, I'd say your are not blocked. If you used another account, now blocked, it would be helpful to know what that account was so that I can see the edits that lead to your blocking. I'm being patient and helpful, but I should probably stop wasting my time and block you for evasion and trolling, so do let me know what the previous account was.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: It's my capacity to editing articles that was blocked not the whole account, it's the same account with which I am talking that was affected: Alain02. Please note that it was blocked just for 3 days; I am just trying to avoid recidiving the mistakes that I did in order not to bother the Wikipedia community anymore.
@Alain02: I see no blocks, and we cannot selectively block you from editing. You are however not autoconfirmed on this account. You must make at least ten edits before being able to create articles. I'm skeptical of your claim of only editing with this account because of the word "recidiving". That is not a word. I have blocked for recidivism, which is a word I use when reblocking someone who repeats blockable behavior. You also say you were blocked for spamming. There are no spam warnings on your talk page. No warnings at all. No prior blocks on your current account. But to answer your question, don't add external links to pages unless you are citing a source. Don't write about a subject in a non objective tone. Before trying to create new articles, try improving some existing articles.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster County

On your comment on my request for this article [2] about this editor trying to sneak in negative commentary - yup. Standard tactic for Cutler. This guy has been trying to get his rather odd conspiracy views in Wikipedia for a while. I've got a very(!) short summary of examples here, but I've found stuff in articles from 2016 and earlier from him. There's an edit filter in place that cuts back a lot of his stuff, which is why you don't see anything resembling the prior rants anymore. Prolog has been incredibly diligent on reverting and semi-protecting targets, I just request the ones when Prolog isn't around. You can get some idea of what this guy thinks by googling their name and lawsuit. Some interesting reading in there. Thanks for you help! Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Hey, no need to change the protection level (or reason) back to what I set it at. If you feel it should be longer, feel free. Not a big deal at all. Have a good one. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Uncle Dlohcierekim's Move

Uncle Dlohcierekim,

How could you provide The real edits by me is undone by Ravensfire in article Simran Bagga is protected by you. most of the given information in that article is fan edits. without any references there are alot of fake information pressing the actress.women is equal for everyone.Award nominations are fake.check if you can or if you are true editor in wiki.Also improperly placed most informations in the intro section (Says the movies with Kamal Hassan..which indirectly reflects her relationship with Kamal...with is not a good behaviour of her limelight— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.2.119 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uncle Dlohcierekim. Really? I'm afraid I've blocked. Hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: thaks. had not gotten there yet.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose your guest above is using "Uncle" as a general honorific? Not uncommon in some cultures, such as here a couple of hundred years ago. I will always call you Uncle from now on. Bishonen | talk 15:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Gad. Yes. It's grating, and I sometimes got it at work, though not lately. Multiculturalism, you know. So I take a deep breath and take it in the spirit and all.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll have to call you "auntie", broad "a".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delleted page question - How to do it right to avoid delletion

Dear Dlohcierekim I would like to ask you how to write this File Commander /Android/ article to avoid new delletion.

I saw an article about File commander which has been approved and not delleted yet and I cant understand why mine was delleted if this one still exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Commander

Will this text below, be OK?

File Commander is a file manager/file explorer application that allows users to handle files on Android devices. Released in 2012 it is still running (on Android version 4.1 or later) and maintained by its creators. The current File Commander version is 4.9, being less than 30Mb in size. In 2017 the app hits over 100 million installations around the world.

Up-date history: 4.9 Release date: 2 Aug 2018 4.8 Release date: 28 Jun 2018 4.7.1 Released date: 13 Jun 2018 4.7 Release date: 31 May 2018 4.6 Release date:16 Apr 2018 4.5 Release date: 12 Feb 2018 4.4 Release date: 14 Dec 2017 4.3 Release date: 24 Oct 2017 4.2 Release date: 28 Aug 2017 4.1 Release date: 28 Jun 2017 4.0 Release date: 25 Apr 2017 3.9.5 Release date 09 Mar 2017 3.9.4 Release date 27 Feb 2017 3.9.3 Release date 06 Dec 2016 3.9.2 Release date 02 Nov 2016 3.9.1 Release date 10 Oct 2016 3.9 Release date 30 Aug 2016 3.8.1 Release date 20 Jul 2016 3.8 Release date 07 Jul 2016 3.7.1 Release date 07 Jun 2016 3.7 Release date 26 Apr 2016

Please comment on Talk:Albert Cashier

You have previously participated in discussions about the use of gendered pronouns in the biography of Albert Cashier. An Rfc about this topic is taking place at Talk:Albert Cashier, and your comments are welcome. Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Madeinphilly

I have concerns that account might be a promo account. I found this old comment left https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lithopsian&diff=prev&oldid=755930683

Also, their user page (prior to being blanked and deleted} also advertises SOL3 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I worked for them over a year and a half ago when opening this account. As stated, last time I checked all of these brands aren't under the same parent company. The only common denominator is I work within the footwear industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeinphilly (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Pinging Toddst1 SemiHypercube as they had participated in AFDs of article involving User:Madeinphilly --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


<<ec have not read the foregoing.>> @Tyw7: Unsurprised. Despite their assertions, the content felt ham-handedly promotional, and the SOL3 content was deleted as G11. They're user page could've been G11'd as well. They have a COI warning and I left them some advice. They had a long hiatus, so we will probably not see further creations from them for a while. If they continue, they will create enough of a pattern for WP:COIN.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Here's the full thread User_talk:Lithopsian/Archive_1#SOL3 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) Should this user be given a WP:NOTHERE indef block? SemiHypercube ✎ 20:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging John from Idegon as he nominated the articles for deletion. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to block a user who may just be struggling to grasp how to contribute constructively. They have few edits. Many inexperienced users only understand WP:BOLD, so WP:bite and WP:AGF come into play. There is no rush to block anyone unless/until problems persist. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict template

Just so you know (if you didn't already), the edit conflict template is not <<ec>> but {{ec}}. SemiHypercube ✎ 20:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably his style. Ha ha. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cocker (album)

And that is why we pay you the big bucks. The world may crumble, and every area may be under DS, but this shall remain pristine. :) Drmies (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ven Dr Sumedh Thero

Hello Dlohcierekim, thanks for informing Ven Dr Sumedh Thero about wp policies. I assume you forgot a "not" in the sentence "Wikipedia is a promotional venue or a place to post ads." Please see [3] for his last edits. JimRenge (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acellus

I noticed that you deleted the wiki article on Acellus. This was done in error.

A decade ago an article on Acellus was deleted, and the article was deemed poorly linked, too promotional, and on an obscure subject.

This is no longer the case. Acellus is now in use by over 2 million students worldwide. It has multiple references in the press, in EnSciTech, The Chicago Tribune, The Kansas City Star, and others.

Frankly, it is ridiculous that Wikipedia does not have an article on it.

I understand that the wording was too optimistic for a non-biased encyclopedia, and I agree that the article can be easily changed to reflect this. There are also many links that can be added to increase the quality of the article.

I would like you to revert your delete, but I understand if you are somehow unable. If that is the case, I would love to put it back up and fix any issues myself. User:Hoorah83 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoorah83: Thanks for your note. Please reread the messages about speedy deletion on your talk page. IMHO, this clearly met criteria for WP:CSD#G11-- unambiguously promotional. Please feel free to appeal at WP:DRV. In addition to not reading like ad copy, all content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Good luck and happy editing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: Thank you for your quick response. I did put quite a bit of work into the article, and it was discouraging to see it so quickly discarded. Your promo link was very educational, and I appreciate it. Would it be against the rules or somehow impolite to immediately create a much smaller, brand new article that is very carefully worded and well-linked from press articles? And then slowly as I find more links (and there are quite a few) expand the article, making sure it is written in as unbiased a way as possible? I can see that with the way the article is currently written, getting the deletion overturned may be a more difficult process. User:Hoorah83

An edit you made to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing some time ago

Hi, sorry to bother you. I had a question about a particular part (actually, just one sentence) of the "Summary" section of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing that I couldn't quite figure out how to interpret correctly. I eventually tracked its current form back to an edit you'd made in February (I know, sorry to just be bringing it up now), so I was hoping you might be able to help me understand the intended meaning? I figure, if it confuses me, I'm probably not the only one. Given the page's topic and audience, I feel the language can never be too plain, and any potentially confusing wording is best rewritten in clearer terms. Basically, the third paragraph of that section reads:

It is essential to recognize patterns of disruptive editing. Our edit warring policy already acknowledges that one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts they constitute a pattern that does violate policy. Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one brief period without fruitless attempts to discuss with the user, (as when the user persists after 12 warnings to stop) and may not consist of the repetition of the same act. Nevertheless, a series of edits over time may form a pattern that seriously disrupts the project.

The sentence I had questions about is the one highlighted in green. Your edit inserted the bold text in the middle.

The previous version, "Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one brief period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act.", I feel is fairly clear.

But in its current form (without the highlighting): "Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one brief period without fruitless attempts to discuss with the user, (as when the user persists after 12 warnings to stop) and may not consist of the repetition of the same act." ...That sentence just has so many negatives that I honestly can't work out what it's trying to say.

So, apologies again for taking up your time with this admittedly-trivial matter, but I was just wondering if you could perhaps explain the intent of the sentence, as it's written now? I'd like to preserve its full meaning, and just rewrite it to express that meaning using slightly plainer language. But, I can't do that without first understanding the sentence myself. Thanks! -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FeRDNYC: Trying to make more clear. Perhaps I made less clear. There should not be a time limit on when editing has become disruptive but we should not block for disruption when someone is not really being disruption.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: Thanks! That's extremely helpful. I'll try and work on a re-wording based around those concepts. (Most likely what I'll do is revert the sentence to its earlier form, and then add another one explaining what you just presented, in similar terms. I think that's probably the cleanest solution.) Much appreciated! -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FeRDNYC: A quick glance says Special:Contributions/LBS_(not_group) may be such . Vandalism or AGF clumsiness? Disruption or awkwardness? Only saw one edit, already reverted. Haven't looked further. Still drinking coffee.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update in the "Accounting software" page

Hi

I would like to request you to add CashManager Accounting Software as reference like other references in the accounting software Wikipedia page. If you want to learn more or verify, please refer to these websites(G2 Crowd, Capterra & Finances Online).

why does "XERO" & other software website pages exists on Wikipedia? Did you take money? Your response says that clearly. Because XERO, CashManager and all other software website and companies are same. If you still don't agree then something you did here is wrong.

Why can't you create a Wikipedia page for Cashmanager?You could just do that same as other softwares/companies.

Did you take money from Other companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helendawson (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Helendawson: Not familiar with other pages you referenced. As there are more than 5 million, I hardly could be familiar with them all. Looked clearly promotional to me. Best advice would be to appeal at WP:DRV. If you feel I've done something unscrupulous, please feel free to complain at WP:AN. Or you could read material left on your talk page and try to create a non-promotional encyclopedia entry. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Cheers, and happy editing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


It because you are taking bribe from others. I need to publish this news to the news portals. What you people are doing here on Wikipedia. If anyone else try to publish, you make them promotional. You should explain the differences. But, definitely I am recording your activity and will publish worldwide what you are doing it is not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.153.219 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should certainly follow the advice already given. As you appear to be offering threats, I may take you to ANI. Strongly suggest you follow advice already given. Your "you people" statement makes it clear to me you do not wish to contribute to the community. You look like an outsider trying to cause disruption and acting with an ulterior motive. You have made a serious accusation. Suggest you retract it or report it at WP:AN.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If any TPW wish to add comments, feel free. Having a tremor day and it's getting hard to type.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

congrats! you exist!

JonathanLa (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, spambot

User:JanetMcclellan7 is a spambot account. I blocked it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmapuri temple

Hello,

This is very ancient and famous temple in Telangana..lot of devotees visit every day...and also from neighbouring states... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnukvv (talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Hello D. When you have a moment would you please put the protection you applied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health inside a <noinclude></noinclude> template. AFDs always transclude to other pages and without the noinclude they wind up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Your help will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 20:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks D. Re this it didn't need the "nowiki" template just the "noinclude" one - I'm guessing you just copy pasted my post above. You can try it without the "nowiki" to see how it looks if you want. Apologies for the confusion and thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: Seemed simplest to remove the icon, so I did. No one needs to edit the page unless they all figure out what is best.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lhtee

Lhtee I agree with the block, but did you mean to block as a vandalism only account? That doesn't seem right to me... SmartSE (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: Musr have mis clicked. rhanks-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Your 't' is broken too ;) SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ro. I'm rurnning inro scooby-roo-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Sorry for being a pain, but isn't their editing also problematic, not just their username? i.e. {{uw-spamublock}} SmartSE (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't quite see my way to a spamu. The problem with their edits was more of disruption than promotion. Not sure they will fit in. First must rename. Then we can see.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough. Time will tell. SmartSE (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Right to bear arms

Hello,

there is no content dispute on Right to bear arms. Just a bunch of IP users section blankening parts of the article.

Those should be blocked. Locking the page in state where the given section is deleted by those vandals only bolsters further vandalism on Wikipedia. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cimmerian praetor: It's not uncommon to characterize edits one disagrees with as vandalism. The edit summaries certainly gave the appearance of a content dispute. If vandalism is afoot, you should report at WP:AIV. You can also request unprotection once the vandals are dealt with. If you wish to make an edit and are prevented by protection from doing so, you can request on the article talk page. If the others' edits are vandalism as you say, you should have no trouble convincing enough users of this on the article talk page and obtaining consensus to support your desired version. A quick glance at the talk page shows you have not succeeded in persuading other users. It seems to me, you have miscategorized the opposing opinion as being held only by "a bunch of IP's" (sic). Again, judging by the talk page, this is not the case. As the disputants seem to include registered users, the need for full protection is obvious. If you are someone who looks down on anonymous editors, or have mistaken me for such a person, then I am at a loss for words other than, "nope". Cheers, and happy editing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summaries certainly gave the appearance of a content dispute.
IP users 209.171.88.84 and 2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:8503:E6A8:8D7:D51C (which I suppose is the same person) are blankening a section because they don't agree with it being there. No argument put forward for doing that.
A quick glance at the talk page shows you have not succeeded in persuading other users.
A separate issue of whether the lead should start with objective statement of facts or subjective description is being dealt with at the talk page. I have stopped reverting the edits and brought it there. The debate there however has not moved forward, stoppin when HiLo48 instead of arguing just finished by "I'm really busy at the moment, and cannot be bothered nor do I have the time for debating with someone with a closed mind".
If you are someone who looks down on anonymous editors
I look down on anonymous editors who are section blankening and give reasoning "that is not true that should not be here" - while referring to a very precisely sourced part of article.
I look down on users who start reverting long standing part of article and when the issue is brought to talk page they just sign off with "no time for this".
Behaviour like that is frustrating and that is exactly what leads people to leave Wikipedia. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Might Be Triggering A Lilac-Colored Feline-Like Alien's Out of Control Vandal Behavior

Salutations Dlohcierekim!

Remember that Canuck toon about a 10/11 year old boy named Coop and his enemy a feline-looking alien who was aptly named Kat?

They have disappeared from the small screen a while back. However its page on Disney XD's website is still up and running!

Unfortunately back in November or December 17 someone protected their episode guide indefinitely. You did not do this right? 

So instead of having it SP'd for a long time have it protected for four weeks and then it gets unlocked.

The vandals on said guide aren't that frequent compared to Ed Edd n Eddy's episode (and character guide) which have been locked up permanently.

Last but not least please respond to me as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source: en.wikipedia.org/w/List_of_Kid_vs_Kat_Episodes

Do you have reliable sources unconnected with the subject supporting your opinion? Have you tried discussing this on the talk page?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G12 in draft space

I'm not aware that there has been any change. A draft article is still in the public domain. Do you remember the article? Deb (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)-Nothing has changed.A copy-right violation in any place over Wikipedia (Mainspace, draft space, wherever...) is G12-able on sight. ∯WBGconverse 07:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try to dig through my deletions so as to educate the detagger.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Geoffrey Owens Protected status

His new job as a cashier at Trader Joes is listed on Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/31/cosby-show-actor-geoffrey-owens-spotted-bagging-groceries-at-nj-trader-joes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.178.132 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Heiden and Leon Trotsky

Hi. You need follow the situation on the page of User talk:Jimbo Wales (topic: Question). - 2.94.135.159 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Revdel request Comment

Would you revdel Special:Diff/857897230 under RD2 please? Thanks. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CONTENT DELETED

Hi Dlohcierekim, 

the content i was writing about a certain man got deleted because of the web link i added.

Its an independent article without his knowledge. You said the problem was wrong citation? Could you explain more and also tell me what to do better please?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenupsdigitals (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenupsdigitals: Thanks for your note. Please see the message I left on your talk page. It was clearly promotional. It was gushy. It was laudatory. It was effusive. It needs to be neutral in tone. Objective. Matters not at all that subject knows/does not know about it. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Am rewriting it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenupsdigitals (talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to understand noindex

Hi,

My page source file contains this tag " <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/> ". How do I sort this problem and what should I do in order to make sure that this doesn't happen to my edits?

Regards! --Rk566RUFine (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rk566RUFine: Don't understand the question. Do you mean your user page? We exclude user pages from search engines. We are not a webhost and we do not want our user pages searchable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only point in allowing bots to index your page would be SEO. W don't have that here. We are not a webhost.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

For reminding me to finally post this... GABgab 18:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Baggalútur

Hi Dlohcierekim; I was going to contest the speedy deletion request of the article Baggalútur, but now you've already deleted it. My reasoning would have been:

Certainly notable band (one album topping the Icelandic charts); article needs more content, but I wouldn't call it "unambiguous advertising or promotion"; and I don't see the supposed copyright infringement, as the link given leads to the description of a different band (Utangarðsmenn) which is anyway taken from Wikipedia (not the other way round), "Description provided by Wikipedia under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY-SA 4.0".

As I'm not very active in English-language Wikipedia, can you advise on how to proceed in this case? It was not a particularly good article, certainly, but at least one of the two reasons given (G12) doesn't actually seem to be the case. I'm not sure how you handle such cases here; as an admin in German-language Wikipedia, I probably would restore the article and convert to regular deletion request. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the whole problem when articles get speedily deleted. I made this very clear to the editor Chrissymad at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrissymad#Baggalútur But as I was formulating my response on his bogus arguments about BOTH copyright violation (saying the indicated page https://play.google.com/store/music/artist/Utangar%C3%B0smenn?id=Aoq2hsbxum5lfn5kokwapyjpoc4&hl=en was admitting it had taken our content and not the other way around saying clearly Description provided by Wikipedia under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY-SA 4.0) and I was refuting the so-called promotional aspect, as I found the article well written and standing for years and gets requested for deletion and in 10 minutes it's gone to the detriment of the readers of Wikipedia on completely subjective grounds of one or two editors. Me, I am thick skinned about such things. I have edited 10 years and understand the rules and understand how unwelcoming and opinionated some editors are, that's why I mention that I have no desire of becoming an administrator. But at the end of the day, one article more one article less who cares. There are thousands of articles on a daily basis. I have no interest in promoting one band from Iceland. I don't care about them. What I do care is that readers and editors are given a chance to elaborate on certain notable subjects. It's just this penchant deletionist attitude towards non-English subjects that bugs me, so no wonder readers perceive us as too anglo-centric. Materials are difficult to find when almost all references are in a foreign language we don't understand. I hate to argue about things, so I am dropping this off immediately. One article less? Good riddance. Reviewers don't want our readers to know about an Icelandic long-standing band? Listen to Lady Gaga and Drake ad nauseam, who cares about a strangely named band, at least to our ears, from a God-forsaken small island. Thanks for your concerns, and thanks for your more reconciliatory tone, but I have no intention of spending any more time on this Baggalútur thing. We just move on. werldwayd (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

−

it was not tagged for deletion because of notability but it has been sitting unsourced for 5 years and was extremely promotional so g12aside I strongly oppose restoration. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments (User talk:Gestumblindi). Now the article is totally removed in 10 minutes of rush subjective judgement. So no point in continuing on this. I only reproduce here the so-called "extremely promotional" article in its entirety to know what we are talking about: werldwayd (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<<Wow, please do not put g11 content or any article content on my talk page>>" (Then I add the titles of the 11 albums and the many singles from 2001-2017). So there's the so-called "extremely promotional" article. werldwayd (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the Icelandic and quite elaborative page I may add is there still for those really interested, so readers will still have access anyway, albeit in another language. Translation devices are fairly available so non-Icelanders can always use that facility. I am sure there will be some editors who would be interested in having another go in English for this. The page is at with far more info (promotional also?) https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baggal%C3%BAtur_(hlj%C3%B3msveit) In any case, it won't be me. I move on to other matters. This is the last you'll hear from me on this one though. As for the article, good riddance. No sorrows. We move on. werldwayd (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestumblindi: @Werldwayd: @Chrissymad: Thanks for your notes. Feel free to appeal at WP:DRV. If I have erred, they can reverse and restore. However, it looks like I deleted it as WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12-- unambiguous promotion and copyrighted elsewhere. Notability and popularity are irrelevant. If you have sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to meet notability, you might create a new article that is non promotional and not a copyvio.
Please do not place article content, especially promotional or copyvio on my talk page.
I have restored so I can get the copyvios detector to work. Looking here, it looks like a copyvio to me. The irrelevant bit you talk about is irrelevant. I did not think I would be so stupid as to make that mistake. The copyvio is highlighted by the detector. I really do not care about the Icelandic version. They may operate under different rules than we do. For all I know, they don't care about being used as a promotional platform. Do feel free to appeal at WP:DRV if you would like. Cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like a copyvio to me, as the potential "sources" apparently have taken the text from Wikipedia, not the other way round. I think you know that it's very common that text from Wikipedia articles that have been around for some years is taken for sites such as Google's Play Store. E.g. the first "source" (as mentioned above) explicitly states this, and also if you look e.g. at the "ismus" site, they state "From a Wikipeida-page on Baggalutur" as their source. So I think we can pretty definitely rule out WP:CSD#G12. This is a years-old article and the text has ben used by other websites in the meantime, a common case. What remains is WP:CSD#G11. And though one could say that the article focuses a lot on the successes of the band, I think this is something we often see in smaller articles in an attempt to emphasize notability, so the article doesn't get deleted as non-notable. I still don't think it's extremely promotional. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Please feel free to appeal at WP:DRV.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, done so; by the way: The copyvios detector is not a magical tool. It can detect identical or similar text, but not who has taken the text from where. Therefore, it is often needed to have a closer look at the supposed source when using such a tool (especially if the Wikipedia article is not new and it's therefore more likely that other sites have taken Wikipedia's text). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User History21st

Hi Dlohcierekim With all due respect, discussing with someone who provides no sources or unreliable sources is not really useful. Have you checked this talk page (when i provided two sources proving that he is wrong while he just answered "It seems you know nothing about the subject. as Morocco has conquered the city just couple of months prior to this battle") and this talk page (when he provided numerous unreliable sources in order to push his POV while the claim is already sourced with Juan Vernet, an eminent specialized source for medieval Islamic history ...) ? I don't really see how discussing with such an editor would be anything else than a waste of time. This user could use his block time to read carefully Wiki policies, and especially WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:WAR and WP:TENDENTIOUS. reporting this kind of users takes precious time, which reduces the amount of time we can spend to improve the encyclopedia, this is my opinion and i wanted to let you know about it. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS : I first commented on his talk page since you asked for opinions there, but he reverted my comment, so i came here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: I did not request opinions there. I offered terms for unblocking. As you two are at an impasse, recommend that you follow WP:dispute resolution. Recommend that you stop making posts like that on his talk page-- inappropriate, condescending, and counter productive. He can certainly remove comments left on his talk page. Once again. I did not invite opinions, especially from someone at an impasse with the editor, and who is simply pouring gasoline on a fire.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find your answer quite disconcerting, since you said "I've been here before. If no one objects, I'd unblock you tomorrow" on his talk page, i just came up and gave my opinion, maybe i misunderstood your statement. I don't really see what impasse you're talking about, the user used unreliable sources (or even no sources at all) for his edits, refused to get the point and has been reverted by other users than me for this reason. Also, Please note that i never said that he could not remove my comment, unlike history21st , i'm aware of WP:OWNTALK. i fully agree with you when you say that my comment pours gazoline on fire, but again, i just commented there because you said "if no one objects" while he harassed me on my talk : [4]. Anyway, i wanted to give you a perspective, but if you have decided to unblock him, i suppose that you have good reasons for that. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim Just seen your comment on the user's talk, it's perfectly fine for me. However, i would like to underline that i don't intend to be uncivil or something (if you think otherwise, then please check my contribs and try to find an uncivil comment of mines) i just reported facts, you can check the talk pages i linked above, the user systematicaly refused to have a constructive discussion, kept denying what the sources state and claimed to know the topic better than other editors. I'm not here to fight others, just want to ( modestly ) improve the project and help new WP:HERE users if they need my help, once again, you can check my contribs to verify what i say. Maybe my words "pour gazoline on fire" but you can easily go and see that what i'm saying is true. Take care. Bests.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Discussion seems to have stalled last week with no resolution, but it looks to me like History21st agreed to the unblock conditions and no blocking admin opposed an unblock (though at least one was skeptical about how soon a reblock would come). Want to finish it up? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

You made a typo on 2017 October.Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: To which do you refer? I make many, especially when I am tired or excited. spellcheck just can't catch them all.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page archivesThegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well if it's archived all the better.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Cage

This user constantly keeps reverting when I’m fixing the grammar I’ve left a message on their talk page and they removed it it seems to me we’ve both broken 3RR I tried talking to this user Mooseez, what do I do TheKinkdomMan talk 17:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheKinkdomMa: Welp, the first thing to do is get you a large cup of your favorite beverage and drink it. Slowly. You're all het up. Your message on their talk page was probably not terribly constructive. You've stopped editing. Good. You should calmly discuss why your version is better/worse than theirs. Leave it be for now, seek consensus for the change. Seek WP:DR if that does not work. I gave them a 3RR warning. Perhaps calmness and reason can now prevail.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m getting error on your comment on their talk page, but all I was doing was trying to explain but if that’s not working I guess I’ll just leave it alone so you don’t have to take it to the notice board I’ll just ignore the person TheKinkdomMan talk 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Barnet School

I just dawned on me that the user might have tried to hotlink an image file on his D: drive in Special:Diff/858374681/858374839. I tried to communicate with him on his talk page. Unblock AGF? Sam Sailor 18:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was the same edit as was made by one of the IP's you reverted. That tipped the scales for me. Hot link or not, the title indicated it was not as per the label, an external view of the school.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Left em a note. Ping me if they turn out to be an innocent bystander.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What made me pause in this situation was the creation of an account with a first name that matched the "signature" inserted in Special:Diff/848669494/858372295 (please revdel). Is it him or one of his mates posing as him, who knows in these situation? At least the user should be given the benefit of my doubts here. I'll keep the talk page on my watchlist. Sam Sailor 07:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suits (season 8)

It wasn't an edit war it was Esuka323 stupidly removing the added credits when the editor goes and enforces their stupid rounding. Read the edit history before making assumptions. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@119.224.3.221: Right back atchya-- read the warning about edit warring. Now y'all can discuss how much better your version is on the talk page. Please be sure to base your arguments on policy and avoid calling other people's edits "stupid". Seek consensus. If an impasse is reached, follow the remedies at WP:DR. Esuka323 feels discussion with you is pointless. Prove 'm wrong.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
Hello, I just wanted to say thanks for the message on my talkpage and sorry that this issue has occurred. I'm not experienced with relation to Wikipedia policy but I believe that I acted in the correct manner when dealing with this IP editor. I have witnessed on quite a few occasions the editor warring over multiple TV pages with other editors and the disruption they bring to pages. I don't really want to have to deal with people like that when editing here, it just ruins all the enjoyment of contributing when someone is causing hassle. For that reason I won't be engaging them in discussion and have removed reference to this issue from my talkpage. Once again, I'm sorry and thanks for your time. Esuka323 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Esuka323: I don't think you did anything wrong. And I think the IP editor does not work well with others. Calling your edit stupid and saying that they'd have continued to edit war w/o the page protection is not what I wanted to see.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FNG India

Hello, why you blocked removing from FNG India (article about Fox Networks Group): FX (India), Fox Crime India, Fox History and Entertainment, Nat Geo Adventure and Nat Geo Music, despite these channels are either doesn't exist now (FX, FCR, NGM) or either rebranded (FHAE - Fox Life India, NGA - Nat Geo People). Please look at these articles. The original sources mentioned in the section are 10 and 8 years old, so many information changed to this time. I please for bringing back version with Fox, Fox Life, BabyTV, Nat Geo Channel, Nat Geo Wild, Nat Geo People and Nat Geo HD, and find and add more "fresh" sources. I will be so happy ;) - User:2A01:114F:510:5600:BC79:EC7E:E2C8:3093 —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@2A01:114F:510:5600:BC79:EC7E:E2C8:3093: Thanks for the note. I protected the page because y'all were edit warring. You need to discuss the edit you wish to make not here, but on the article talk page. Obtain consensus for the change via discussion. If an impasse occurs, seek wp:dispute resolution.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Qiangdong

I noticed that you protected the above-captioned article without removing what I believe to be content repeatedly added in violation of WP:MUG. Am I in error on this?

Thanks Bongomatic 17:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bongomatic: which you removed. I generally just protect them, without taking part in the edit warring. That would make me involved. I leave it to those who are familiar with the article to decide what content should be removed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Theodore Guerin High School

Hi Dlohc! I think it was a good idea to block 64.109.54.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) rather than semi the article — at least to start with. But 48 hours? Did you notice the IP had warnings about disruption on the same article going back as far as April 2017? It may well be one of the school's own IP's. And did you notice the edit summary here? Do you mind if I extend the block? Pinging User:John from Idegon in case he's interested. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: As you know, this is a library IP used by different people. Blocking for 48 hours for an ownership issue, which this particular user had not been warned about, seemed like a nice attention getter. I think going beyond that until the editor shows further inclinations is premature and bitey. Although there are a number of warnings on the page, they may have gone to different users and are probably stale. As this is the users first block, I think 48 hours is more than enough.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this is the school's IP. I think PC on the article may be the best solution see below. John from Idegon (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I suppose it could be a different person this time, even though the additions are similar. The longer paragraph here was also added word for word today. NM, it'll work itself out, no doubt. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I fully protected the thing and left a note for the interloper. Perhaps y'all can work this out.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't see how we can. Full protection isn't that helpful IMO. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]


And now an editor who would now fall under our WP:UPE guidelines and has a history of promo editing on Indianapolis Catholic schools has jumped in. Help please. John from Idegon (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Heh! Socking? Block evasion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No just strong OWN/PROMO. Long history of it on Indianapolis Catholic schools. If you look at the talk page, you'll see. BTW, I'm Gtwfan52 (name change). Bishop Chatard High School has similar issues. I don't think a WP:UPE block on Tdawg would be out of line. John from Idegon (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for it if bishonen agrees. You might want to take it to WP:ANI-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ANI will be necessary, now that Dr Tdawg has been warned up and down about paid editing disclosure. I'm not sure if they can edit right now, anyway, since their own IP, which you can see in this post on John's page here, was blocked by Drmies yesterday for this edit summary. Bishonen | talk 16:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't see the thread above when I started this one so I removed the header. I agree with Bish here. This isn't a content dispute, it's COI PROMO cleanup. Please reduce protection to PC so I can finish. Virtually everything I removed was self sourced (except one small bit that was off topic and sourced to a homestead webpage). Oh, I looked at a map...the library is next door. The kiddies are just jumping their WiFi. John from Idegon (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks....Semi is better, but PC would be preferred as at least one editor is confirmed (but is it ROPE? If so it will pay out soon). As you can see this article has been a pain in my arse for several years now, and extended protection of some kind is warranted IMO. John from Idegon (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Long term pending changes?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just leave it semi'd for now. I think the rope swinging in the wind may be helpful, but if this has to be revisited, long term PC has proven effective on other school articles that are troubled by this kind of disruptive editing. It's not always vandalism, (but it isn't always GF either), and most of the other editors that spend inordinate amount of time on school articles are PC reviewers. John from Idegon (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of crossing the street, I'm intrigued by the notion of one doing so to evade a block. I once had a user drive miles to use a library computer to let me know they had done so to evade a block they felt to be unjust.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haldwani

As you protected that article, would you mind taking a look at Hello Haldwani Community Radio. The same person is trying another end run around the AFD. I've changed it to a redirect, but suspect they'll change it back. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the redirect. Feel free to take them to WP:ANI if the disruption continues. I think I already final warning them.03:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Protection of Here (album)

Hi. Regarding your protection of this article, which I don't disagree with: I wanted to inform you of a few of the circumstances surround this. The other editor you gave a warning to, Dan56, has been disruptively/tendentiously editing (against NPOV policy), based on his biases/POV [far from his first time editing this way on articles] – e.g., removing sourced, notable content (positive reviews from notable sources), replacing a positive/mixed review rating with a negative outlier, removing citations and replacing them with a bogus one - that if he were an IP editing would've been labeled vandalism long ago and would've been banned. Edits that he does not want on the article but uphold policy (such as NPOV), he's reverted (not to mention his common behavior on talk page content disputes). The last edit was his removing of citations again and replacing it with a bogus citation that didn't verify the sentence. Now, the editor TheAmazingPeanuts who requested page protection, is entirely partial to and was (along with several others, as noted on the talk page) canvassed by Dan56 to agree/vote with him; TheAmazingPeanuts requested page protection after reverting my edit (that was removing the bogus citation Dan56 replace), thus keeping Dan56's edit, the statement on the article unverified and inaccurate. So you protected the page right this editor, friend of the Dan56 engaged in disruptive/tendentious editing, reverted the previous version to keeping his friend's version. Lapadite (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lapadite77: I suppose the gist is you want me to revert to your preferred version, supporting your claims with accusations against two other editors. Well, I'm not going to do it. I'm not getting dragged into this content dispute and choosing sides. That would make me WP:Involved. If you have merited arguments dealing with policy and guideline, make those arguments in discussion on the talk page. Gain consensus. If an impasse is reached, seek dispute resolution. If you believe that the other editors have engaged in misconduct, take it to WP:ANI. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAmazingPeanuts and Dan56: FYI-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm an honest and direct person, so I got to say I don't appreciate your cynical presumptions and what I take as an unnecessarily aggressive and accusatory reply to me, particularly as I didn't comment about you in such a way. I was merely informing you of the circumstances there (which I think are important to know, namely because they involve policy-violating edits), and the intended moments before your page protection. As you imply, you're not aware of the circumstances, and I presume you page protected naturally just after seeing the request and seeing recent reverts on the edit history. If you say 'accusations' in the sense of allegations, just refer to the article's talk page (where their canvassing, as well as Dan56 of other editors, is also linked; and where you can see some of Dan56's accusations & personal attacks on me); you can also take a look at Dan56's projected, bs accusations & personal attacks against me on a Dispute Resolution thread I had created at WP:DRN (which is of course not for commenting on editors but on content, but alas) to move forward with a discussion and receive outside opinion. But I definitely understand if you don't want to be dragged into the dispute (I wouldn't if I was you), however i'm not sure how you won't if you wanted to tag the two buddies here, and perhaps need to know when discussions end for the page to be unprotected? And yes of course, discussion has been had, I've participated a lot, and noted merited arguments based on policy (and Dan56 & TheAmazingPeanuts have both attempted to dismiss, and both making "TL;DR" (too long, didn't read) replies; at least other editors Dan56 canvassed there just stated their agreement with Dan56 and didn't return to criticize or bait another editor. Lapadite (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lapadite77: I think the full protection is necessary because you and Dan56 are having a edit dispute. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't canvass anyone--I notified editors who I found to be active at the time and of relevant expertise, including Walter Görlitz who oft disagrees with me in content disputes; that you cannot trust experienced editors who happen to have shared editing experience with me further bespeaks a lack of good faith on your part. And you continue to regurgitate the same unreadable walls of inflammatory text--even after Iazgyes advised you to do otherwise. Dan56 (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who you're trying to convince? Certainly not me, as you know I'm one of many editors aware of and one of the ones who've called out your history of WP:tendentious editing in various articles (I see just from your page recently [5]), history of misrepresenting (to put it neutrally) and projections, assuming bad faith (I see just from your page recently [6], [7]), accusations, personal attacks in disputes, history of WP:canvassing users you know/have worked/chatted with before to support your POVs/positions in disputes, instigating and engaging in edit wars, and history (with few exceptions) of getting away with all that nonsense. You've a history of aggressively pursuing your version of how you want an article to read particularly with article subjects you have a bias for/against and editors with whom you have to contend your POV; look at recently, this article Here, (an article that received acclaim from critics per reliable sources) – where you not only aggressively pursue replacing, in ratings box, positive/mixed rating with a negative outlier, you also aggressively pursue removing several positive reviews of notable publications from prose, removing citations from the sentence on reception and removing that the album received acclaim per cited sources - it's a whole WP:tendentious vortex; editing and conduct habits (plus all the aforementioned) for which an IP or a less active/less known editor would be soon unquestionably blocked. And you canvass to try to make sure your POV and WP:NPOV/WP:DUE-policy violations is supported. I (like at least several others I'm aware of) try not to participate in articles I realize you may often edit to avoid your nonsense (that's how WP:disruptive and obnoxious it is), but alas, since I had recently edited in an article you edited and had participated in a RfC/dispute you were involved in, you'd been 'responding' to different articles I've been editing and reverted edits I made on them, including per tradition pushing POV edits like: [8], [9], [10]. Don't think I hadn't noticed your recent increased negative interest in my edits/articles i'd recently been editing.
I try to approach every discussion I participate in, whether or not it has involved me or an editor I know or have history with, neutrally and objectively, and content in question per WP:PAG. And sometimes one is dragged into vortex of nonsense like the one you typically bring, well. That's all I'm personally saying to you, in response to all your personal nonsense/bs projections you've thrown at me recently, on several pages - and of course gotten away with, including at a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard exclusively for CONTENT. I don't have time in life or in the time I can use to improving WP to waste on nonsense from a user here like you. I'm focusing on content, and as usual ignoring your trolling/baiting in particular.
And you absolutely did, as you've done times before, cherry pick and canvass/WP:VOTESTACK, including (as mentioned on this album's talk) TheAmazingPeanuts (that revision shows more with TheAmazingPeanuts), Cwmhiraeth, Walter Görlitz, Holiday56, Harfarhs (the ones I was aware of). You thought your pinging of Walter Görlitz (whom I'm aware of and If memory serves I've had disagreement(s) with in the past) would help you, particularly seeing as you tried to misrepresent his position at the talk page while you attempted to accuse & dismiss me, but he turn down your POV-editing.
TL;DR? You absolutely canvass, and I'm not wasting my time on your personal nonsense. Not here on WP for that vortex. Lapadite (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keto Dog Blog ban

Hello, My account Keto Dog Blog were blocked, also I wasn't able to upload article about Keto diet for dogs. it was marked as advertisement my user name also.... but I can't figure our why.

there are lot of articles about keto diet, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone

I tried to make article designed for dogs owners, about ketogenic diet for their pets, there weren't any obvious or hidden advertisement . My user name is also nothing in common with any advertisements. Its just basic info about my articles. I am working in animal shelter in Lithuania, and diets for dogs is were important from my side of view , and I am planing to make few articles about keto for dogs, with advice for owners and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.193.24 (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN/UTRS

I don't know if you noticed, but he hasn't edited for more than a month. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:Thanks. So I have been told. That's a shame. The matter's gone on from there, and the outcome not hopeful.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avengers Assemble episodes

Hi, would you mind protecting this page against anonymous users, it has been subject to constant vandalism by the same IP. Thanks. Matt14451 (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding page deletion of Spotlyte

Hello!

Thank you for reviewing my first page on the wiki! I definitely tried to keep the entry fact-based, removing all claims, but I realized that I forgot to cite other sources to validate the facts.

Would you be able to revert the deletion of the page so that I can include additional citations and revise the draft post?

Here are a few of the new citations:

Thank you so much for understanding and helping with my first page post!

Geenjai (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Nate[reply]

Draft:Hilary Franz

Would you be okay just leaving the original redirect I created in 2016? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu:Yes. Looks like someone jumped in and added promotional material to it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, probably copy-pasted it from her website. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS #22736

Howdy! Will you be reviewing the applicant's response or would you prefer it if I reset to New to open it up? Best, Just Chilling (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC) @Just Chilling: Thought I'd released the thing. Can't seem to reset to new.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, but you need to be a Tool Admin to do that. ;-) Just Chilling (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UDP FifthHouseGuy

Hello Dlohcierekim, can you please take a look at user FifthHouseGuy. You blocked him earlier for creating spam articles and he starts it again. I asked him to disclosed COI but there is no reply and he constantly removing the AfD notice from Naveed Qazi‎. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Havergal College

Pls see this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havergal_College which has notable alumnae and other information on it. How come we cannot add the same information for our school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username3221 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a photo of the school on the wikipedia page? I am talking about a real photo. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username3221 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is citing an actual mission statement a promotion? A published mission statement, approved by the organization's board? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username3221 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this? 

How is this allowed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havergal_College#Notable_faculty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username3221 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to intrude, but it is a conflict of interest for you to edit about your own school. I'll post some information about this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the mission, but what about this entry below, isn't this promotional then?

Havergal's mission is to "[prepare] young women to make a difference." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havergal_College

OH, Holy Lamb of God. See your talk page. Ack.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

How do I upload an image I took and own? how do I declare copyright on that?

@331dot: You intrude any tome you want. Always welcome!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does one update this outdated information? How does one add an entry for the current enrollment?

With an enrollment of 92 students in grades 1 to 12 (as of 2015). The average class size is 11 students.[2] Advanced placement courses are also offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username3221 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Username3221: With information cited from reliable sources unconnected with the subject. SeeUser:Dlohcierekim#42.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Yes. I just don't like being trampled over people who do nothing but revert my edits and things? Yes. I had problems with reverters and how this site changed, like I felt that I don't belong here because they always hate me. For me, I hate reverters and reverting my edits just because of "NO FANSITE CONTENT" allowed. I'm slowly hating this site for not letting me edit without getting a revert notification. I hate it.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackgaia02: Thanks for the note. I hear you in that some things have changed in ways I do not like. I'm sorry that you no longer enjoy editing here. (I'm not good at the interpersonal stuff, so I'll barge right in.) Apparently over the last few months you've been lashing out at other users, hence the ANI thread. My purpose is to avert blocking or banning. My hope is that we can persuade you to address content without being rude and that going forward you will be more collegial. so that you can continue to edit here. With the sense of estrangement, that will be difficult. (I've been estranged all my life. Wikipedia is one of the few places I can function. So I empathize.) Just woke up. Did not see if you posted at ANI. My hope is that things will work out.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: I'm more hurt right now. IS that everytime someone reverts or removes part of a Anime Article I get offended. Because I don't like the whole "not a fansite" rule agreement in this site. I lash out because some people aren't understanding how much time it takes to write an info. Wikipedia is starting to become anti-anime every single day and also hating being told not to post "that edit". And the fact I don't like to get along with people I don't like i.e reverters.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackgaia02:Wikipedia has always been "anti-fansite". It is not just anime, it is any subject matter that has any sort of following. If anything anime has it easy. You should see the fighting over fancruft in Pro-wrestling and MMA. In fact, a few years back every week a thread on MMA appeared in WP:ANI. This year it's been pro-wrestling. It got to the point that discretionary sanctions were authorised for those two article types. The flavour of the month is warring over music genres.

Wikipedia will never be accepting of material that is more suitable for a fan site. As @Beyond My Ken: noted, this is what Wikia is for. The best I can suggest is, if you're intending to write something and you don't want it to be reverted, you should ask yourself before you even start typing: "is this material going to be judged, and reverted, as fancruft?". Blackmane (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I recently needed fancruft on a subject you would never find covered here. The Wikia site was incredible-- and totally lacking in reliable sources unconnected with the subject. It was all WP:OR and/or sourced from watching it on TV. There's great content unsuitable for an encyclopedia on Wikia. You might want to try there if your edits here are rejected as fancuft.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
fixed ping.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't belong in Wikia either, as they also wanted sources in their articles. There's nowhere for me to go on my own world and way of editing.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that there are no anime fansites that accept reader contributions? I find that difficult to believe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kicking someone when they're already down is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I agree with all the users above as far as Wikipedia being an anti-fansite is concerned. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and as such, verifiability is crucial. WP:V has been site policy for a very long time (since 2005); it's not a policy that only popped up recently. I don't like how you are accusing other contributors of "doing nothing but revert your edits", when they are just doing their job as contributors by keeping fancruft off the site.
I'm going to be honest here - it is very easy to cite reliable sources, especially with all the modern tools that are implemented on Wikipedia in recent years. Also, just because you don't like how Wikipedia is run nowadays, that does not give you the right to attack other users for abiding by policy. And yes, more and more Wikias are starting to adopt Wikipedia's WP:V policy - and it's easy to figure out why when you think about it for a second. Wikia IS based off of Wikipedia, and it would only make logical sense for the Wikia owners to upgrade their Wikias to ensure that readers are exposed to reliable information, instead of original research.
Furthermore, even though you have not been attacking other users ever since I compiled your report on ANI, it is clear to me that you have no intention of actually abiding by site policy, and that if a sanction isn't placed on you, it is reasonable to assume that you will continue to edit disruptively by attacking other contributors for abiding by policy, or other less experienced users that are still learning the ropes.
BG02, you have been warned many, many times about your problematic behavior. Do also note that you are obligated to abide by site policy whether you like it or not. Editing on Wikipedia does not mean you are free to edit to your heart's content; it is a privilege given to those that honor the site's code of conduct. And that privilege could be taken away should you choose to ignore site policy. If you think you don't belong here, then you are not obligated to stay. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sk8erPrince: That was mean. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. You really need to be less shrill and less judgmental in your approach to others.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Sk8erPrince can just get his high horse off my neck. I don't belong here? Ok. Let me sulk and cry while everyone celebrated then because of one person saying I belong to either site.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've hatted the entirely unhelpful commentary. @Sk8rPrince: you've been warned by 2 admins to back off, now back off. Blackmane (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sk8erPrince: fixing ping. Blackmane (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

adding and removing comments

Y'all are making me dizzy. OK, dizzier.-- Dlohcierekim  (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page Draft:Emercoin

Good afternoon, Dlohcierekim Please tell me what I need to add to this article(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emercoin) for publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Na.Soks (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gregory Guldner

Hello, the article was tagged as A7 and G11 before it was moved into draft space. It is a copy of Draft:Gregory Todd Guldner which was declined for not meeting notability requirements. It was created by the same author which has declared having a WP:COI (see here) that and the fact that the author re-created the article under a different name in the main space is what prompted me to tag it under G11 (not the content itself even if it is written as a resume). So I think while the move into draft space was well intended It just should have been deleted. Since it's a copy of a previously existing article and they are both on draft space I think WP:A10 would probably also apply. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Or a hist merge-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would also work. but not much has been added other than the picture (after being tagged), and none sourced. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for future reference, my understanding was that when it was duplicating a previously existing topic deletion was the way to go, is merging also a valid option? Regards --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course. preserves the hsitory of attribution. I certainly want credit for my edits and I'm sure he AfC reviewers want credit for theirs.. This way, nothing is lost. Somoene might have a word with the creator if there is a WP:COI.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are dealing with multiple, nearly identical drats. If one were an article and there were nothing salvageable about the draft or new article, A10 would work.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info.That makes sense, but please notice that the information and comments for improvements from the previous decline of the submission have been lost with the merge. Regards --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or have they?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was too quick . --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem about editing local Churches in the Philippines?

1. It is true that anyone can edit in Wikipedia. No one owns any page here. 2. Why don't you trust people who hold the records for the churches or dioceses? 3. Information are based on the Catholic Directory of the Philippines. 4. Why focus much on the DIOCESE OF NOVALICHES where there are more than 70 dioceses, which Wikipedia entry is not monitored fairly as with this one? 5. I can help editors, but I don't want other editors telling me what information I have to put it. 6. We can dialogue, not rant or argue. 7. Please acknowledge my work. 8. Check other Wikipedia entries of other dioceses. 9. Even if anyone is free to edit here, do you not consider it a personal insult by not allowing the people, especially the priests, to give proper information? 10. This is not taking sides or parties. This is for the TRUTH!1205dz (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1205dz:Thanks for your reply. It would be better to respond at the ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:1205dz.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Michael

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that there are persistent issues with Hurricane Michael. We have had copyright violations, unsourced content, poor grammar/structure, dead links in refs, disruptive/test edits, and some article blanking (this one has been handled). Given the fact that this has occurred since the article was semi protected, I would like to suggest extended confirmed protection for a week or so. FigfiresSend me a message! 14:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Epsilon Phi

Just noticed the nuking. I'm a member of WP:FRAT and have worked with the Philippine GLO pages as well as US. Let me know if anyone complains about the nuking, and I'll be happy to chime in...Naraht (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting two users

Hi there. At user talk, you connected Dr Ravi Kiran Yadav and User:Nsitecnology/sandbox but I cannot see how. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Thanks. Fixed. wrong link was still on clipboard and did not notice.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLOCKEVASION

Dear admin, Mollywood.lover is an incarnation of Muhammed.suhail. Starting from the common dot in the username to the editing pattern and common articles of interest, it is likely. Like Muhammed.suhail, Mollywood.lover is also a single purpose account created to promote actor Mammootty by adding inflated box office numbers in related articles. Edits were challenged and undone by various experienced editors. Mollywood.lover was created two months after the last block. I think that account is also promotional due to narrow self-interest in promoting an actor, and is always battling with other editors for content disputes. Mollywood.lover is just continuing what Muhammed.suhail was doing. You only need to look through their contributions to know that for yourself.137.97.164.243 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.96.136 (talk) [reply]

ANI comment

"Hell, I've made mistakes with power tools. The thing to do is recognize the error, apologize to the injured, and glue any parts back on. Hopefully the user will wield the tools more proficiently in the future."

I got a kick out of your comment because I am a construction contractor and have a fingernail that I wrecked with a router (broke the bone as well) and a thumbnail that I troughed with a Rotozip. As for glue, I sometimes use SuperGlue to patch up minor wounds. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question about WP:RPP

Is RPP also for redirects or is it just for articles? Thanks. Whispering 20:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Whispering: I've seen redirects as well. Usually I protect the redirect target before I realize it was a redirect.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article's creator(s)

Hey Dlohcierekim, hope you are doing well. I'm looking into a possible case of COI/sockpuppet editing surrounding Omid Farokhzad, and would like to known the names of the editor(s) that created the article before it was deleted. Could you provide me with this?--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: much obliged!--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Available

new page patrollers at work

I need you for something important... Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I need you to revoke TPA and Block account Creation for Fat People Eating My Crayons on the talk page. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Here Fat people eating my crayons! Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. My pleasure.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also can you revdel all their edits? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a rangeblock may be needed..... Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, shit here we go again.... Crayons scare me Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)  Done. My pleasure.-- -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Checkuser needed}} Please, if you think it wise to check for sleepers. Maybe a rangeblock?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is at SPI now, so we'll look at it there to see if CU is needed. Thanks, Dloh. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? I am Confused? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Started with Angry German Kid Breaking His Keyboard (talk · contribs).

@Thegooduser: there may be more waiting to pounce.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep my eyes peeled on the UCL Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protests in Armenia (2018)

Re your fixes at Protests in Armenia (2018): thank you and godspeed. You are a nicer person than I am, for taking the time to do that. Best, Jessicapierce (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: Thanks, but I cannot take credit for work done by my OCD.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
@Dlohcierekim: That made me laugh. I fully understand. Right now I have this tab open, because I'm changing "on" to "in." Does it NEED doing? Probably not, but I just can't let it go. Jessicapierce (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request

Hi. Can you revdel this purely disruptive BLP violation? Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennv3771: Del'd all the disruptive rev's. And a fine good morning to you, too! Talk about setting aside one's own political views to wield the mop. Left user a friendly warning.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario News Now page

Beware the Flag of the Rouge admin!

I specifically didnt call it a propaganda network even though that's what it is to not violate your stupid rules. Yet you still didnt allow it. I cited a credible source and everything. People need to know their tax dollars are going to fund this. It is a real page with over 6000 likes. There's no reason my page shouldnt have been allowed. What a joke! You're a horrible admin.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCandor (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainCandor: Too true.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Je suis un admin rouge-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ user:Dlohcierekim

Earworm

This was mean. Now I can't get Dionne Warwick out of my head. Proof that you are a horrible admin... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ja. Me too.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mwahahahahahahahahahah-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tragedy is, I only remember the first line, so that is what I have looping in my head now. That and the "do do do do do do do do do"... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's like the records stuck on that first line.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As punishment, I demand that you read every word written here over the next several days/weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough Dramamine in the whole world.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:I suppose this will have to serve.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I think a spammer you blocked (Aaryavarta-technologies) has resurfaced as Nileshgawade8181. I've left them a very, very pointed warning but thought you should be aware. Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock washed and out away--Special:Log/block&page=User:Nileshgawade8181-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StarForce article deleted?

Hello! I clicked a link today to take me to the StarForce DRM wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarForce ) and note that it was deleted as it had (apparently?) turned into Advertising of some sort. However, a number of pages still link to the StarForce page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/StarForce ) and StarForce itself is historically relevant as a fairly controversial and well-known DRM implementation. Was it really impossible to either revert to an old edit that wasn't full of advertising or rewrite it? I believe there's enough significance to that page that it shouldn't just be outright deleted. I don't wikipedia edit all that much so I'm not sure how to see the state it was in when it was deleted or the past revisions of the page (outside of archive.org) but I did note on the "Request for undeletion" page that for "G11" type deletions, we are asked to contact the editor who deleted it on their talk page. So, here I am doing that. Thanks! Shortspecialbus (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shortspecialbus: I will restore it and the community can take another look at it. If you can find a non spammy version, that would be great. Thanks.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I cannot restore that many revisions. I am asking for help.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll try to take a look at it and see if I can find a decent version, but as I don't want to set the wrong expectations, I don't really have the time to police it going forward after hopefully getting it into at least a "better" state than whatever it was. I appreciate your work and response on this! Shortspecialbus (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd looked more closely, I'd have see 1300 versions. Had a visceral response to the version that was then current as it was blatantly G11.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of bookworm attack article with vpn ips

The page Austro-Tai is vandalized by several IPs of bookworm8899. He seems to use many vpn ips. He claim that everyone that reverts his vandalism is a sock. He even claim that an admin Zzuuzz is a sock. You can use the edit history if this ip tonsee what other articles he candalize and what i reverted. I suggest he may vandalize more article. Could you please check this out and protect the vandalized pages? He delete or change sourced content without any argument and accuse different users to be obe and the sme user(see his edit comments). Thank you 212.95.8.196 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My article

Hello Dlohcierekim, I am very sorry about the misconception of my article Gregory Todd Guldner. I must have forgotten to make a COI, as he is my biological father. I will be sure to do that. I tried to make the article as unbiased as I possiblely could, but I guess I did not do a very good job. Thanks, DataLore753. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datalore753 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reaching out to me (Purplecart (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]

G12 User page

Yo, take a look at User:Ttgg66. I just G12'd his submitted Sandbox at AfC, but I looked at his talk page and user page and there's more. I don't know whether to WP:AGF or bring down the CV banhammer. Bkissin (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Food Markets

I would welcome opinions from those watching this page. I feel like G11 is appropriate, but there are more than a few edits. It's been tagged for ref improve since 2015. COI editors keep treating it like the company's website and getting reverted. Alternatives are CSD, ProD, AfD, or leave be. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Opinion

Thoughts on DreamyDesserts? I don't think the editing shows a "new" editor, and it still smells of disruptive CIR, even if not outright vandalism. -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems awful knowledgeable about templates and tagging for deletion for a brand spanking new user. Are the not quite right quirky CIR problems not a little too not quite right? Yeah. Maybe a fresh starter, maybe a sock or block evader. Let them address issues on the talk page and we can play it by ear, as their edits are just off to begin with. Could be real CIR or could be overplayed their hand. I hate too go all contra AGF, but that's my impression.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret:-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems they ended up globally locked as an LTA, so case closed. -- ferret (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I've done this before [12] in my zeal to discourage vanity autobiographies. 2601:188:180:1481:7868:6144:7C5D:484A (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deleted research conference page

Hi, I'm still defending my addition of the ISORC computer science research conference (please do not place external links on my talk page) to the list of conferences at List_of_computer_science_conferences. As you quickly deleted the page, now we're left with a red link on that page, so I guess someone will delete that link as well. Now, assuming that list of conferences does have a right to exist on Wikipedia, then I'd appreciate your hints as to what is the right format in which to edit a new page about this conference (which exists since 1998), in order not to have the page speedily deleted (by someone else, possibly). Thanks.

@T.cucinotta: Thanks for your note. You do realize Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? It is not a a directory, a soapbox, a venue for promotion, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must meet notability requirements with content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. List of computer science conferences is a curated list of conferences that have articles on Wikipedia. It certainly is not a place to put external links that do not support article content.
The encyclopedia sometimes uses lists to present information, and curated lists condense information in a manner that allows readers to link to further information if they desire. For the most part, they need to be lists of items with articles. Certainly not external links.
I'm intrigued by a concept of "a right to exist on Wikipedia". Could you elaborate further? How does one establish rights to be in an encyclopedia?
Did I not leave my standard deletion notice on your talk page? Oh, I see that I did. To recapitulate, the page lacked significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It was sourced only to to lists and sources connected with the subject. Also, the content was promotional in nature. I mean really-- "proud of our spirit of openness"? To recaptituate further, you can try to create a non spammy, well sourced article via the WP:AFC process. That way any problems can be sorted in relative peace so long as they do not involve spammy content. Hope this helps. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

this is a spambot and has been glocked so probably not worth even leaving a message ;) Praxidicae (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Langille page

Hello, I was wondering what was wrong with the Charles Langille page I made that was deleted. I can remove the part about the gofundme, even though that wasnt the main point of the article (was just something he is doing currently and I thought was worth mentioning). Is their a way I can get the draft back so that I can revise it and improve it? I am very passionate about this. Thanks Sheldon Cooper Fan

You mean apart from reading like total vandalism/hoax/bad joke? Totally lacking any assertion of meeting WP:anybio? Please read the deletion notice for advice on how to proceed via WP:AfC if you really intend an encyclopedia article. Thanks-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting Tollywood Guruji and it's talk page

--Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock of User:James Lawrie

Hi I wasn't sure if I should give you a heads up or User:NeilN or User:JamesBWatson3 as you have all dealt with the above user. There is a new kid on the block

They have both removed the same sources from Newgate Clocks & Watches and have similar language usage such as

* * * They have shown some amazing editing skills for a newbie and are clearly having fun trolling Shropshire articles and have managed to get some probable meatpuppet support for a deletion nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrewsbury Chronicle. I came across them because they pinged me here with a very odd message. Should I open a SPI? --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


 Likely

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J

There have been reverts of edits on the article "J" lately, and I'm unsure whether PC protection is enough. The reverts have been immediate. Is upgrade to semi-protection possible, or can you at least extend PC protection? --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

certificates

Hi there,

Ian (Wiki Ed) pointed me to the talk page of Geradh. It is not a class project, as far as I know, but you raised an issue I'd like to follow up on. Geradh has not done a very good job of clearly articulating the particulars or the nature of the project he is working on, so I'm hoping to abstract it a bit from that particular case, but I find it interesting because I'm involved with a wide range of off-wiki group editing projects through my capacities as an employee of Wiki Education and as a volunteer with Wikimedia NYC. I agree that certificates or whatever other form of credit or documentation is involved should not be contingent on content "sticking" (this is something we emphasize to instructors teaching with Wikipedia). However, certificates are not uncommon ways to document participation in something, and I don't think it's necessarily the case that it means someone is participating in order to get the certificate. When I ran the Wikipedia Fellows pilot, there was no payment or certificate given to participants, but they expressed that more academics might be able to make time to learn about/edit Wikipedia if their participation in such a program were formalized in some way, for example by a certificate or a letter or some other documentation. It's an outcome, sure, but wouldn't in any way compromise or even change their manner of contributions or the standards they're held to. We're working on userpage templates for Fellows akin to what we put on students pages for the sake of transparency, but a certificate in such a context doesn't seem in the spirit of WP:PAID. Some edit-a-thon organizers put together some documentation for participants, some make tshirts, and others, like just about every WMNYC event, include free food/drink that could be framed as "in exchange for editing Wikipedia." My presumption is that you will reply highlighting that Geradh seemed to indicate the content needed to persist on Wikipedia for him to get the certificate, which is not true of any of these other examples, but I wanted to leave a message anyway in case I'm wrong and there's a bigger issue we should be thinking about. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan (Wiki Ed): Yes, but I'm not sure what was going on there. It's the very sketchiness that led me to add the PAID. Mine was his fourth unblock decline and his story varied over time. I was the first to ask if this were some sort of class project that had gone wrong. Usually, the class project people are quick to point out that they are doing this for a class (doing as they were told to do!) and OMG, why are you doing this to them? Like as soon as they see they are blocked. I don't think this was an edit-a-thon or something like it. This looked like maybe a PAID situation rather than something we should encourage. Figured they could clarify if it were a non PAID situation and clarify if this were a real educational program that needed to be brought into the WikiEd fold for better shepherding. Hopefully, y'all can help guide them in so that there is less disruption for Wikipedia and greater fulfillment for them. Does "coworking space"mean anything to you? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradgd/Archive, oh my!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I mainly wanted to raise the issue of certificates and the conflation of documentation of participation with rewards/payment for particular activities. It sounds like this is not a generalizable situation, though. :) I'm familiar with coworking spaces, at least that concept as it exists in the US. A place for people who work remotely, freelance, or otherwise don't have access to an office. You pay a monthly/yearly fee and have either a dedicated or shared desk or office. Sometimes start-ups or other small organizations will use them for the whole group, but it's unusual to hear about a big project coming out of a coworking space. In most cases people are doing their own thing, and if it were part of a company housed in the coworking space, they would just say "we're with company X" rather than "at a coworking space." Strange indeed. Sorry to say, there's not much we can do here. That said, my colleague did some research and found that it may be this place, which offers some classes. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke TPA

Please revoke Captain Blocker's talk page access. Thank you. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YOO

why my page was deleted by you? explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfaamos (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kfaamos: Thanks for your note. To reiterate the message I left on your talk page, it was non conforming with Wikipedia:User pages. To elaborate further, User pages and User talk pages are intended only to promote collegiality among users. They are not to be used as a soapbox for writings not connected with the editorial process on Wikipedia. Certainly they are not meant to host promotional material meeting WP:CSD#G11 as this did. If you wish to create an article, please use the Article_wizard for drafting articles, or use the Articles for creation process. Please be aware that subjects of encyclopedia articles must meet notability requirements such as WP:anybio and must be neutral in tone. All content must, of course, be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Man blockage

I have made corrections to the budget section of the page for the past few days, as it was incorrectly stated. It was repeatedly changed back to $59-70 million, even though all others sources (including the citations used) have dropped it back to $59 million, due to tax reductions. Adding the 70 million is unnecessary and distorts the reader’s POV of the box office revenue by adding an unnecessary $11 million. Please unblock the page and allow the correction to be made. S26205229 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting feedback on deleted article

Hi, sorry to bother you. I had a question about a particular article which was deleted previously. As per your feedback, I've rewritten the article from what I feel is a neutral point of view, and will try to submit it using the Article Wizard. If you could take a look and let me know if there are any changes that I should make to the article, or if any part of it should be deleted, I would really appreciate it. The article is in the sandbox like you suggested, and I'll submit it on Article Wizard after making any changes that you recommend. Here's the link to it: Article Link: User:Chandanprabhakar/sandbox Thanks for your support. Chandanprabhakar (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too early in the morning and I'm harsher than the reviewers, so maybe Cabayi can look at it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chandanprabhakar, I'll admit I don't like it. The word "co-headquartered" is rare enough that I searched for it. Other than Unilever it only crops up on Goodera's facebook page which is a strong hint that the text was at least based on their own material. The prominent inclusion of the company's funding is an indicator that they've not actually done much.
I also have reservations about Chandanprabhakar's good faith. User:AnjaliDas10 was blocked for promotion on Draft:Goodera at 09:42, 12 October 2018, right around the time Chandanprabhakar first created a version of Goodera. Chandanprabhakar's account pre-dates this, but appears to have been a sleeper until the need to recreate Goodera arose. There's more than a slight whiff of sock- or meat-puppetry.
Dlohcierekim, Do you want me to raise an SPI? Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi: Yes, please. I had a niggling feeling, but couldn't quite remember.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cabayi (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Booo

Re [13] - think you missed [14]. :) No worries. Cheers! Fish+Karate 14:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

titrate

Are you a chemist? In my field, we use the phrase "titrate it up" as a part of analysis process. Like, changing a method, and applying a few different methods one by one; and observe the outcome for difference. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a nurse. Some of our more interesting drugs start low and are increased for effect.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page - Would like to work and improve this

Hey there. Realised that you've submitted a speedy deletion on the article Surya Jhunjhnuwala. I would love to continue working on this and have noted on the grounds that this article has been deleted. Will give it another go if that's possible? Could we restore this and i'll continue to make amends? The Jhunjhnuwalas are very prominent in the hotel industry with the subject heading a chain of hotels on an international scale. His brother, Girish Jhunjhnuwala , also owns a separate chain of hotel and holds his own wiki page.

FYI on some articles about Surya to boost notability and credility: http://bwhotelier.businessworld.in/article/Catering-to-the-Discerning-Guest/03-07-2018-153738/ https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sites/default/files/attachment/2016/02/02/BT_20160202_FEBWEALTH_02.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roslah9022 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated vandalism on Deerfield Academy and Choate Rosemary Hall

Thanks for taking care of those semiprotection requests. I just wanted to let you know that I've rangeblocked the offending IPs at both articles. --Kinu t/c 16:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC) @Kinu: Way cool. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

page delition

why my page got deleted? enven though i've only put my info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harinpandya (talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Harinpandya: Thanks for your note. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a venue for you to place your "public page". As I mentioned in my deletion notice on your talk page, as well as was mentioned in the CSD notices you received. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I already indef'd them -- ferret (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for StarForce

An editor has asked for a deletion review of StarForce. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splash and Bubbles

Thanks for protecting Splash and Bubbles. My feelings were hurt from seeing that the user from Missouri repeatedly failed to keep its opinion on the Eel and his song to itself. I don't know if I watch the article or the show ever again if this type of vandalism keeps up. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wiki-ed

There's quite a list of his little lambs...I tagged and moved a ton of spam. I've never seen this type of nonsense coming out of a college course. I'm wondering if it's a course in marketing and what not to do on Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan (Wiki Ed): I'm 100% behind using Wikipedia as a teaching tool so long as 1) students are learning how to edit this encyclopedia and 2) students are not causing disruption by creating inappropriate articles like spam.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baraboo High School

Please reduce the protection level of this Wikipedia entry, so that important current events can be included in the article while this school is actually international news. I don't see an edit war on this page, just one user who keeps removing what is by all means relevant information, as this article might help to show: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46195299 Zorba1968 (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you mind reviewing this timeline and the very civil talk page discussion and perhaps consider returning the article to semi-protection?

  • 17:13, 12 November: A talk page discussion about the NAZI salute controversy begins. [15]
  • 03:43, 13 November: Article is semi-protected, and this puts a complete stop to intermittent IP vandalism and edit warring. To be clear: from this point on, there has been no edit-warring. Editors are civil and collaborative.

Then:

  • 19:16, 13 November: John joins the Talk Page discussion. [18]
  • 19:40, 13 November: John again deletes NAZI salute section from article. [20]
  • 19:41, 13 November. 1 minute later John requests full protection "Content dispute/edit warring – repeated insertion of completely off topic content. Refusal to discuss first." [21]

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole: Thanks for the note, though I don't see why you posted a timeline on my talk. Hopefully, the disputants are now discussing their respective views on how the page should read, as I made further disruption a non option. And yes, I saw autoconfirmed users edit warring. If the dispute is over, I can unprotect.---- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, I apologize for 'dragging you into the discussion' - that was not my intention, you made a good-faith action as an administrator to stop disruptive editing and I did not mean to imply otherwise. I say this here because I didn't want to make these comments on the article talk page to avoid off-topic discussion. Per the editor above I disagree that making a single revert to a removal of half of an entire article without community consensus constitutes me participating in "edit warring", as opposed to reverting disruptive edits, but I acknowledge that the page's edit history was turbulent. I'll make an effort to be more reigned in with my tone. Best, FlipandFlopped ツ 15:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Flipandflopped, you're not the edit warrier here. The person ignoring WP:BRD and gaming Dlohcierekim into protecting his preferred version is John. Per WP:BRD you behaved impeccably. You reverted an edit that went against consensus. The "R" in BRD. John commenced the edit war with his next edit: reverting your edit. --17:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the timeline is important here, as stated, one single person reverted the joint effort of others without giving adequate reason for doing so and without consulting the talk page first. Editing of the new section then continued and that same person then reverted for a second time and immediately afterwards asked for full protection – dubiously claiming "completely off topic content" – which was then granted. Only after that did said person make any efforts to engage in the discussion on the talk page and seek consensus. To me, there are significant problems here with WP:RV and WP:STONEWALL and I'd also like to point to the essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary Zorba1968 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the timeline to show you, in the simplest, clearest terms possible, that the "edit war" consisted of one edit by John, who reverted Flipandflopped's edit, instead of discussing the edit on the talk page. One edit. That's not an edit war. That's one editor ignoring BRD. If any administrator intervention was required - and in my view none was - you might have pointed that editor to WP:BRD. Full page protection is way, way out of line. Please lift it immediately. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@-Anthonyhcole: @Flipandflopped: Do we have a consensus to unprotect / return to semi protected? If so we can.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need consensus. There was no, zero, zilch, nil editwar. You made a mistake. You fully-protected a page with no basis in policy to do so. At this point, you should say, "Oops! Sorry" and undo your off-policy intervention. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not the full-protection decision was correct or whether there was actually an 'edit war', most parties involved were operating in good faith so let's move on from that. My only fear with returning the page to semi-protection is that the same editor who had previously been engaged in aggressive reverting and violations of WP:BRD without consensus will continue to do so now that the page is semi-protected. I think that would warrant further consideration from uninvolved administrator(s) at ANI, though, as opposed to re-protecting the page since there has never been any multi-party "edit war" amongst autoconfirmed users, per the evidence @Anthonyhcole: has provided. Let's hope that doesn't happen and consensus can more successfully emerge before any further removals. I'll avoid talking here as opposed to on the article talk page from now on. Thanks, FlipandFlopped ツ 19:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon:-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There most certainly was an edit war. There was nothing whatsoever discussed about the propriety of the content, simply what content to include. Per BRD, I removed the content and joined the discussion with my well grounded policy based explanation of why it does not belong. There is discussion, and an RfC on the propriety of the content. Isn't it frowned upon to change content that is subject to an RfC? I'm going to ask you to restore the content to the version without the "Contoversy" section, and protect the page again until the RfC closes. John from Idegon (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you fully-protect RFP?

So bizzare... even if there was a dispute on the page it would be quite disruptive to protect the page where page protection is requested. funplussmart (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Funplussmart: Bizarre indeed. Clicked the wrong page and did not see till too late. Should be unprotected now. Thanks for your kind thoughts.-- -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
I know it was an accident, but I thought it was funny. I would've never thought of this happening. funplussmart (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Funplussmart: At least this time I did not block myself.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection at American Horror Story: Apocalypse

Regarding your recent protection of this article, if the dispute is sorted out before 15:35, November 16 (UTC), will the protection be lifted? I'm asking this as the finale of said season is tonight, and an episode summary is unlikely to be written if fully-protected. I would also like to point out that the user Jamiejajj, one of the beligerents in said edit war, is not autoconfirmed yet, so could semi-protection be sufficient to stop the edit war? Thank you TedEdwards 15:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If thee is consensus that it's all sorted and the disruption has ended, we can unprotect. I can be pinged or a message left here. If I don't respond at once, it can be requested at RfPP.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And just to point out, one of the two disputes is about the sentence at the bottom of American Horror Story: Apocalypse#Episodes (Evan Peters will direct an episode of the season.). As the finale's tonight, we will know who all the directors are for certain, so that dispute should settle by about 03:00 UTC of November 15. Just to make you aware of the situation if you weren't already. TedEdwards 16:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey Dlohcierekim, just a little message to thank you for page protection at Alans. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of AHS Apocalypse page

Hey. Just wondering if you could turn the protection to semi-protected please? I mean, we started discussing about the issue since a few hours already, but the not autoconfirmed user (Jamiejajj) is still not answering. As TedEdwards already explained you, the finale is tonight (less than 2 hours now), and it'd be a real pity if we can't update the page because of that user :/ We even tried to message him direcly on his talk page, but when you see that he blanked it two times already when users posted the edit warring warning... Also, we did agree on the "issue" so far, the disruption was only coming from that new user :/ Hope you'll be able to help! Thanks for reading! Lady Junky (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Lady Junky's comments, I will make it clear that I attempted to ping the said user here and posted a talkback message on their talk page. There first edit also seems to be only made at 14:16 UTC yesterday. As they should be aware of the discussion, I'm hoping they will join it if they plan on contesting the reverts, but as both me and Lady Junky have made clear, they are a new user, so may need nudging in the correct direction in regards to following policy and guidelines etc. but everything should be fine. In regards to the dispute that is not likely to resolve automatically, it is about whether to use a secondary source [23] (the status quo, and what me and Lady Junky prefer) or a tweet [24] (what Jamiejajj prefers), so to put it mildly, a strange thing to be edit warring over. I was wondering if you would give your opinion on the matter from a neutral perspective. Thank you TedEdwards 01:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Perhaps if they were to revert back, rather than me or Lady Junky revert, we tell you instead, to stop any more edit wars? TedEdwards 01:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Junky: semi protected.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
125,000 tweets. eeewww!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Hey Dlohcierekim, saw from my watchlist that you were active a few minutes ago. Could you use your admin goggles and relay to me which editor (who has since been blocked) created Draft:Amit Sharma? I may be heading towards filing an SPI, as a similar article has been recreated by a new editor. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)​ It was مينا جمال صبحي (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), Smartse blocked them as a sock after an  Inconclusive checkuser result from DeltaQuad. If you file an SPI, let me know and I'll reach out to Alaa about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: will do, thanks.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for being an awesome administrator, and teaching me about G11! <3 Swaggerding (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dlohcierekim. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dlohcierekim. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updation of Navigus Content (Non-promotional)

Rahulsharma8080 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Hi Dlohcierekim, Last time the content for navigus rejected by you. I reference to that I request you to approve my Non promotional content describe below. Please let me know the changes needed if required to the below content.[reply]

Please do not post article content on my talk page. Please follow instructions and submit new content via WP:AFC.13:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

WeGO

Please restore this article and delete ONLY the content you consider to be spam, as there was plenty of objective information in the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGraves (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Raffaela Rein

Hello Dlohcierekim, You deleted Raffaela Rein as it would not have credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. This person however is on the Forbes list of 50 most important women in the tech industry in Europe. (article) I see in the article that the article that this important detail has been forgotten to be mentioned by the original author. Please undelete this article as this topic is clearly notable, and the Forbes being missing can be fixed. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine:restored to Draft:Raffaela Rein. Please via WP:AFC process submit when has better sourcing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

help please

Good afternoon, unfortunately you deleted a page I was trying to create about Medical Marijuana Clinics in FL. I am not attempting to argue it in any way, I am just wondering if it's possible to see the entry that was deleted/not approved? It was for MMTC Florida, aka Medical Marijuana Treatment Clinics of Florida.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtztay123 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtztay123: That was pretty spammy. Most if the content was synthesized from sources not directly about the subject in a promotional manner. IF memory serves, only the subject's website dealt with the subject itself.12:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request

Hi Dlohcierekim, Not sure if this really needs revdelling but if it does could you revdel this please, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Deepfriedokra. 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.TheSandDoctor Talk 06:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empire West, Inc. Deletion

Hello Dlohcierekim,

You nominated my article Empire West, Inc. for speedy deletion and it has now been deleted even before I had a chance to respond to the request. I fail to understand why my article was deleted when there are others that are essentially the same type and have been allowed to remain. For example, Amy's Kitchen. Please explain why that article is OK while Empire West, Inc. was not. Thank you.

Iowahillgal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iowahillgal: Non promotional content created by users without a conflict of interest and with significant coverage from from reliable sources unconnected with the subject? Please see message I left on your talk page. Amy's Kitchen has been around awhile. Looks like it's borderline notable. Just because other less than desirable content has been here a while is no reason to add more. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message.What areas of the narrative need deleting and or editing? Kind regards Quentin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.110.103 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Party of the Reconstruction of the National Order

Hi Dlohcierekim. I saw you PP'd this article. Not sure you venture into AN3 very often, but Cleatcoma1 and Lumsaiken are almost certainly the same person, and probably just some more socks of SacredGeometry333. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Might want to report at WP:SPI.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding and sorry for not updating you, but they were SPI'd and blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: No problem. ("BOOM!" said the boomerang.)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment on my talk page

Hi, can you block the two IPs I reported to AIV please? The same person has also used 2604:2D80:803D:8BEF:38B4:CAD1:D1E6:41CE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to edit Stan Bowman. Thanks JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 05:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JackintheBox: Done also, SP'd your talk. Now when they evade their block, they can come here and play.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 05:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Protection

I've wanted to put a Protection marker for Don Lemon for quite a while, but didn't know how to do it or how to ask for it. Thanks, and could you tell me the procedure for future use? Bellagio99 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellagio99: Certainly. Just request at WP:RFPP. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting CP page edit/lock

Hi Dlohcierekim,


I'm writing to you as more of an Wikipedia user than as a contributor. However, this came to my attention via a Reddit post on my clubs' subreddit. The user SLBedit keeps restoring this section ("Despite the rivalry, both clubs have formed an alliance against Benfica." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporting_CP#Porto_vs_Sporting), on basis of "Restored notable, sourced content." or "Reverting censorship" It really grinds my gears that the SLBedit user (-apparently- a group of paid employees of one of our rivals' clubs) would sink so low as to spread propaganda on Wikipedia.


If you could read/translate the articles that are listed as source, you could see that they are opinion columns of certain commentators/journalists.

There isn't, officially or unofficially, any alliance with FCPorto.

In fact, if you read those sources, the only fact in there is that SportingCP resumed normal institutional relations with FCPorto, after having severed them a couple of years ago.

This "institutional relationship" is the same we have with all other clubs, so saying this constitutes "an alliance against Benfica" is just slanderous and propaganda to fit the "even our rivals are united against us" discourse. In my opinion, an unbiased edit would be:

"The institutional relationship with F.C. Porto was restored on 11 May 2017, after being severed for nearly fours years after the events on the Portuguese Handball Cup final of 2012/2013"


I'm not sure how you can help make this right, but if you have the power, please judge the situation fairly and take action.

Best regards,

Bruno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.3.221 (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not MissParker's first attempts, by any stretch

This is not my first attempt by any stretch - feel free to check my list of contributions before making assumptions. This is MissParker~enwiki (apparently I've suddenly forgotten my password) - wow, no wonder people don't want to contribute here...it's so frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.140.228 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@64.28.140.228: I know. No one wants to contribute here, to edit Wikipedia. Only 5,767,147 articles and 35,181,812 users-- only the largest free content encyclopedia in the world.16:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I meant "anymore" ...maybe they used to want to, but perhaps I am wrong, maybe people do still want to contribute that's why you spend all your time deleting -but fyi the actual total count of articles is not a scientific way to gauge current actual desire to contribute anyway, but who cares about being accurate when you have veto power right? But it holds true for me. I am not a new user, despite what you think. Wikipedia is alienating authors like myself because of the highhandedness of those who have speedy deletion tag power etc. I hope you all enjoy the thrill of wasting other people's time without properly engaging them in a constructive discussion to help improve this encyclopedia for everyone. That would be too logical, I suppose. Better erase it fast because it somehow will get permanently ingrained somewhere and cause someone to get sued... MissParker (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, do you think that last sentence was meant as a legal threat or is it just a general comment, badly phrased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s just an awkwardly-phrased comment. —AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Oops, sorry I failed to sign - a senior moment! Deb (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on user's talk. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello Dlohcierekim,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THE STAI Account

Hi

Request you to enable access to THE STAI account. Its a non profit knowledge oriented body working for Sugar Industry and the knowledge about the association will be excellent for community.

Regards

Ashish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramashish (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikramashish: Thanks for your note. Please provide more context. A link to the article would be helpful. 15:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir could you officiate the username change of SlovonManob.

Hello sir, I’m extremely sorry for inconveniencing you at this time, but could you please officiate the username change and block lifting of SlovonManob. I’m sincerely sorry for my past actions and regret them, and I will strive to be part of the Wikipedia in a wholesome way. I know this is technically sock-puppetry but I didn’t know how to ping you. I hope you’ll understand. If you don’t I understand and hold nothing against you. 2600:1700:64F0:9C90:6179:7878:9A44:9414 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Dlohcierekim, 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 a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
⛄ 🎅 🎄

Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! GSS (talk

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Dlohcierekim, 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 2019.
Happy editing,
TheSandDoctor Talk 07:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for all the work that you do for the project. Here's to a great 2019! --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas protection

That was nothing to do with any content dispute, it was all to do with vandalism by now blocked editors who had managed to get just over 10 edits and start vandalising. By the way, I removed my pov tag editing through protection. I would never do that normally but in this case I think I added it in error and was justified in removing it. Doug Weller talk 07:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I believe Dlohcierekim protected the page because of a content dispute concerning the image in the infobox. I had replaced the image because of copyvio, but the image I replaced with also had copyvio issues. Several editors, including an adminstrator reverted a particular editor's edits. The dispute resolved itself though and the protection of the page came two hours after the last edit. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Philipnelson99: it's still fully protected for another two days plus. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was an EC request then a FP request over the image. As the dispute has been resolved, I have unprotected. It would have been nice if the request for protection had been withdrawn when the dispute was resolved.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The EC request was due to porn vandalism from compromised accounts. It was not related to the dispute that led to full protection. And the article had been semi-protected indefinitely prior to that. Therefore:

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please communicate with me!

How do I communicate with you people? Your website publishes a distorted and harmful "biography" of me. How do I get someone to pay attention and talk with me, by direct means, ideally? If you insist on being my anonymous biographer, ok, but please give me some means to communicate with you and make my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.72.131.156 (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Dlohcierekim/oneself. To reach the Foundation that owns and is responsible for Wikipedia, you can email the OTRS team at info-en-q@wikimedia.org.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of the Alps

You protected this page. Could you look at the related Defense of the Redoute Ruinée (1945)? Thanks, Srnec (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: Semi'd. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for all you do here at Wikipedia!

Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 23:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you so much for all your work keeping RFPP under control during this past week when so many “regulars” are away from their computers! I hope whatever holidays you celebrate were enjoyable, and the new year will be a good one for you! MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Dlohcierekim!

Happy New Year!

Dlohcierekim,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chekaun

Hi, I see you have just removed two extra block/unblock templates at User talk:Chekaun. You conflicted with me, who was about to post the following:

:Chekaun, I've fix the two templates above - it seems that the word reason must be in lower-case for the template to work properly but you had used Reason (capital R). As with the problem I noted above regarding your accidental misuse of the DRN thing, just mis-typing one or two characters can have unfortunate and confusing effects here.

You really only needed to do a single template to give your reason(s) but I've left them as they were.

Not sure what to do here - the two templates you removed did actually contain unblock requests. The entire thing is a bit of a mess. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and now I see that you spotted it. No probs! - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush:There were three, and that's two too many. I will combine all three rationales in the single decline. He seems to be laying all blame at your feet and saying some unkind things as well.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ANd did not address reasons for the block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deleted page "Torry Harris Business Solutions

hi,

can i know the reason ,why my page was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi6591 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhi6591: Thanks for your note. There were two problems with Torry Harris Business Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I felt it was overly promotional in tone. Please see WP:CSD#G11 as well as the message I left on your talk page. Another problem, and I see now the person who tagged the page did not notify you of the tagging , is that it was previously deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torry Harris Business Solutions and is unimproved since then. As I mentioned, the notability criteria for businesses, WP:CORP is somewhat strict. The page as it sat did not meet said criteria and would not survive another deletion discussion. Please feel free to appeal at WP:DRV. If they agree that it should be restored, I will restore and move it to drafts where you can work on it in relative piece. However, this page has been created and deleted several times-- most recently in December by DGG. Hopefully, this will not be a futile exercise. I hate to broach this matter, but I suppose I must. Have you any connection with DM1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/TorryHBS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Thanks.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Fox

Thanks for protecting 21st Century Fox Pepper Gaming (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RPP

Can you respond this request as requester removed request after you protect the page? Thanks Hhkohh (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will allow me...

...to compliment you on your image-inary contributions recently. The parsley was especially good. I do suggest you sign the captions, however, else someone sooner or later will worry people will think they added it because it appeared adjacent to their post. I've found the three-~ sig (name only, no timestamp) is sufficient for this. Keep up the good work. EEng 23:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tried signing and it hurt the formatting. will-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

William Barr

Your opinion please- do you think this edit summary merits oversight? R2 (bleep) 16:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. In the future, please submit oversight requests by following the instructions here. Oversight requests (as well as revision deletion requests) should never be made public. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an oversight request. I was just asking for Dlohcierekim's opinion. R2 (bleep) 18:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. No. In the future please use Special:EmailUser/Oversight. They will make that determination. I am not qualified, tending to err on the side of oversighting, and one should not link to such contact in any event.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have, however, revdel as disruptive. WP:oversight has more information on criteria for oversight.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks both. R2 (bleep) 18:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PNAC's biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes:

On page 60(72 in the PDF) R.A.D. includes this statement: „And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.“

PNAC clearly violates the Biological Weapons Convention, article III with that sentence, valueing them as "useful": "Not to transfer, or in any way assist, encourage or induce anyone else to acquire or retain biological weapons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1845:7400:700A:BD7D:F22F:D2C6 (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's your problem to include a direct quote from the original main source of PNAC, without any interpretation, that's how this childish and unnecessary edit war of Goethean began, when it is clear that this statement violates the biological weapons convention and human rights?

Goethean is already toppic-banned from editing Tes Party-movement articles due to his political bias and features a (far right) "news" article about him saving Ben Carlson's name from wrong associations, so he is clearly not an unbiased source and there was no kind of interpretation in my original quote. I will create as much media-attention to this kind of fascist censorship by Wikipedia suppressing this officially quoted and released genocidal racist facts by PNAC, as possible. Truth shall set you free! Edwin Black is already contacted: Michael Moore and "A&E 4 9/11 truth" will also cause attention to this, as well as the chaos computer club.

Looks like you are propagandizing. Stay off my talk page. No further contact from you. And check your propgandizing assertions at the door.WP:IBAN-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They can stay off my talk page too. cheers-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined protection of János Áder

Hi Dlohcierekim I saw you declined my protection request for János Áder but as he is the president of Hungary and the page has been also vandalised before so would you mind semi-protecting for at least a week?Betour13 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Betour13: Actually, I merely indicated the user had been blocked, which should end the vandalism. The request remains in case the vandalism continues.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.Betour13 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Richardson

Crosswiki we had a very long time of vanity autobiographical articles for this person from 2012, so I am sceptical about anything that appears in this name. [25] Look at the original article writer, did this article, then disappeared. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: While there are enough RS to give the appearance of notability, there might not be sufficient depth and breadth of coverage. You might want to send it to AfD, but you never know how such a discussion will go. You would need to demonstrate that you made every effort to improve sourcing first.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry was interrupted by some reality

He is a non-entity. If he acted, it is non-notable stuff. I trust the article NOT. It reeks! — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Tytler

discussion continued at Talk:Jagdish_Tytler#Accusations_from_Akali_Dal_politician, where it belongs. Please comment there if further commentary is needed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jagdish Tytler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Would you describe what "violation of BLP" you actually saw there? I am only seeing one IP adding reliably sources content on a non-controversial article which has unfortunately became a victim of POV pushing by other editor (DBigXray) who simply whitewashing the subject. I recommend removing protection or fully protecting after restoring the pre-edit war version. Qualitist (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you discuss the content on the talk page. Apparently there was a video of questionable provenance. We must have only the highest possible quality sourcing where negative BLP content is concerned. There was clearly and edit war going on. As you characterize @DBigXray: as white-washing, you probably are at an impasse and should seek dispute resolution. That is after all, the purpose of page protection-- to stop edit warring/disruption so that editors may discuss content disputes. You might want to run an WP:AFC on the talk page and post notices on the relevant WikiProject pages to garner as much input as possible.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The video appears to have been proeprly attributed. That doesn't counts as BLP violation. You should not be protecting page due to BLP violation when no BLP violation took place. The page has been stable for years after all and your protection appears to be giving upper hand to DBigXray over the IP who was ultimately more sensible with their edits. Qualitist (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to take this to the talk page. There was clearly edit warring. I can change the reason to disruption if you like. I will. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now please discuss your contentions about this article as I have advised above.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of dispute resolution. I have asked Sitush to act as a third opinion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption by who? IP or the user or both? Read WP:WELLKNOWN, since IP's edits don't violate a policy. I have restored the IP's version and left a note on talk page.[30] Although I would still recommend that you should do a full protection if you really want to preserve the protection. Qualitist (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion at Talk:Jagdish_Tytler#Accusations_from_Akali_Dal_politician where it belongs.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protecting Park Shin-hye

Hi, can you please protect the page Park Shin-hye? There's currently an edit war going off over its [current version] and I don't want the war to continue but I don't know how to protect a page. Thank you. AhnSoonKyung (talk)

 Done-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, can you reopen the page for editing? The user who requested the above protection has been discovered to be a sockpuppet and there is no movement in the discussion on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.31.81 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)  Done again. Let me know if I can be (un)helpful in the future.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETED PAGE

You deleted a page from December 17th 2018 titled Apostle Joshua Selman Nimmak. Please could you help me re design that page or tell me the wrongs with it, before a new one is created. Oluwatobi Omofade (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwatobi Omofade: Gah. I don't think I saw a single sentence that was neutral in tone. All I can suggest is rewrite matter of factly, without praising him or saying how great he his. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

stig ingar evje

hey , this article i wrote about stig ingar evje was deleted by you, i would like to retrive it. i cant seem to retrive it. It was suppose to go on norwegian wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tberdal (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tberda: Draftified and commented on at Draft:Stig Ingar Evje-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Moeller

FYI, seems you only performed move protection, you responded ecp in WP:RPP Hhkohh (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Thanks. TWINKLE went wonky,-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admin inactivity

Hi. (Should I call you Dloh for short? Nobody calls you Mike?) You wrote "Unless you've been there, you cannot understand..." I haven't been there and am entirely new to this whole discussion and am seeking to understand. There's been a ton written about this and I don't want to read it all. :-) I was wondering if you (or any of your talk page watchers) could point me to something (A prior RfC? A particular comment?) that lays out the reasons for allowing editors to keep rights during long periods of inactivity, particularly the best responses to the usual arguments against doing so. I'm not asking you to collect diffs or anything, just if there's something that comes to mind that you can point me to. What can I read to get up to speed? Thank you in advance for your help. Levivich? ! 08:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Maybe this can respond to your question. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):@Levivich: Dloh is fine.😉 There was, before, during, and after my hiatus, discussion at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard talk page WT:BN. I returned in April (?) 2017 after a 3 year hiatus. That's the longest I am aware of for a successful return. (There was a request at WP:BN from someone who claimed to have been an admin before individual admin passwords, (ca 2005) claimed to have remained active as an IP who wanted the bit back, who lacked email and was pre-SHA committed ID. They ran into difficulties.)

I'm sorry, I don't remember any particular thread. The main arguments against are, of course, obsolescence due to lack of familiarity w/ current consensus and practice and the risk of account compromise. Consensus and current practice did change (for the better IMO) and I took a couple of months to reacclimatize, but I was slower to honor CSD's and had a higher threshold than current practice, so it worked out. I took part in some AfD's that helped me reset. I also carefully expanded my skill-set into areas where I'd not ventured before because that is where the Project needs me.

−

My admin bit was withdrawn during my absence, but I was able to prove my identity to the 'crat's that knew me of old, so that eliminated the risk of compromise, and they restored me joyfully. Also, one should have a very strong password, email enabled, and a SHA committed ID to ensure recognition. I don't know what current thinking on SHA committed identities is. I've also communicated via email with enough users and functionaries that you'd need to hack my email as well to impersonate me. (I've got my emergency proof of ID in external storage just in case.) An increasing number of admins have set up 2FA. There was a rash of hacked admin accounts that was mentioned at the proposal. This led to heightened awareness.

−

So to summarize, one should be aware of and prepare for changes, slowly ease back into using the tools, and one should be able to prove one's identity. Doing these things eliminates arguments for draconian measures. The proposed changes attempt to fix a non problem. One cookie-cutter approach cannot fit all people 'cause we are individuals, not cookies. Hope this helps. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. There was certainly no rush on my part to return. Until the urge became irresistible.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Levivich? ! 13:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for self-block

I realize this is probably not very timely considering the latest discussion that's been taking place regarding self-blocking on WP:ANI, but I feel the need to request it.

I've looked at my past few hundred contributions, and I really don't feel happy about them at all. Over 90% of my contributions, even since I started editing Wikipedia over 10 or so years ago, have been project-space related, usually on WP:ITN. I don't feel I've done anything constructive for the encyclopedia lately. Personally I know I can do better than this, so I'd like to request a three-month block, basically reporting myself so to speak for not taking a more active role in improving the encyclopedia and instead just involving myself in ancillary processes.--WaltCip (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WaltCip: Actually, that discussion prompted me to make myself available. You have tried Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer without success? You have read and understood User:Dlohcierekim/Self-requested Blocks.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I will try a WikiBreak first.--WaltCip (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your archiving in WP:RFPPA

Thanks for help, but I do not know why the heading is 29 January 2017, not 29 January 2019 [31], but I have fixed for you. Also, when you archive requests, please also remove 9-day-old requests, like this because this is rolling archive. Thanks again Hhkohh (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

prbably an inability to type.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assamese people

Thank you for trying to protect the page. The issue was originally settled in the talk page of another page (Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_to_Assam#Content_removal), where a third party also weighed in. I am at a loss on how to address this persistence effort to insert a population in the region for which there is no evidence. Chaipau (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Start a thread on the talk page of this article. Reference the prior discussion. As ask that others heed that discussion. Engage them if possible on the talk page. If those efforts fail, seek an RfC. Failing that, seek dispute resolution.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Started the thread in Talk:Assamese_people#Dravidian_element_in_Assamese_people. Chaipau (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Cotillards

Hello,

This user is always reverting us, some old users with great handball experience, and we always get the same treatment from him. He is harassing and what's worse is that he's threatening us! For instance, look at this, I can't write an objective introduction because he hates on the Romanians. Gyor team conflict CSM Bucharest is a Romanian team, and I see him doing this only against East Europeans. He is from Denmark, and did this against me (Romanian), against the Montenegrin Holstebro and probably more (because he previously received edit-warring). So on Gyor's page, he removed my info on introduction, then I brought 4 sources which were no enough. He went then to revert time after time, threatening me and saying it's not a list of the highest valuable teams. Then, because there are no rankings I edited my writing objectively and according (saying Gyor is the most valuable team in the world alongside CSM Bucharest, exactly like on soccer from where I got inspired). Also, user Holstebro may not have added a source, but he gets no respect for his contribution. He was never wrong. Cotillards could have added a template "citation needed", like I did after the reverts. Christina (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to post this to WP:ANI. Please notify Cotillards on his talk page when you do.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: You still mediate?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dlohcierekim - I mediate. I don't think that I can mediate this dispute. It has content and conduct aspects, and I don't mediate anything that is pending at WP:ANI. I have in particular also learned not to try to mediate any dispute where there are allegations of nationalistic bias, especially involving different nations in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Those disputes run the risk of refighting the World Wars. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Holstebro

Hello,

What do you think? His indefinite ban is deserved? He created another user indeed, but only to comment about his situation (it was just a line, a proposition; with his new user he didn't revert just comment on his page, could have done that via IP but maybe he wanted to be hidden). He was blocked for 36 hours or so, even the admin who banned him agreed that he might be unblocked according to the opinions of the others. Holstebro is not a vandal, he was on Wikipedia for years and simply these two handball users didn't agree and they reverted and reverted. Cotillards‎ is also a little bit too aggressive, reporting people for almost nothing.

I don't deny your work and authority (I also talked to the other admins) but Holstebro is here for ŽRK Budućnost Podgorica and loves handball and Wikipedia. He is not a vandal and was blocked for only 36 hours for his first time. The user Cotillards‎ is slightly different than us and wants to have the last word. He also reverted my edits, even after I brought sources, but I agreed with him at the end. They are just two users who don't want to lose. Please look again, his sockpuppet MNEfan111 only has 1 edit (a comment on his talk page, maybe he didn't read the policy of Wikipedia and wanted to defend himself). Can you give him maybe another chance, please? His contribution was still important for a famous handball club.

I talked to him and I am sure he will read the policy of Wikipedia. He didn't even know what's sockpuppetry. He looks just emotional to me, not dangerous and a vandal how he's called now. Can't we just educate him? Maybe you can do something about it, since you blocked him first. Regards, Christina--Christina (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cristina neagu: How very sweet of you. Y'all need to stop edit warring and discuss your conflicts. You can discuss his block at the pertinent ANI thread if still open or start a new thread there if not. "don't want to lose"? Wikipedia is not a battleground and Holstebro had ample opportunity to discuss and work things out.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horn Africa

Dlohcierekim

May I ask you why you did not set indefinite semi protection after the page has been vandalized multiple times and most importantly why you did not revert the vandalism of the person which is the ip 92.19.177.109

31.168.172.141 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G11 speedy deletion of Facebook Research redirect

Hi, Dlohcierekim. You recently deleted Facebook Research, which was a redirect to the Onavo article, under criterion G11 (unambiguous advertising). The redirect was nominated for speedy deletion by Arthistorian1977, and I had challenged the deletion at Talk:Facebook Research. Since "Facebook Research" is described in the Onavo article, and has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including TechCrunch, The Verge, Business Insider, and Gizmodo, I don't think the Facebook Research redirect qualifies for deletion under criterion G11. Could you please undelete the Facebook Research redirect? — Newslinger talk 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Newslinger talk 17:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

What was this all about? I'm not aware that anyone has accused me of 'stalking'. Is there a discussion somewhere that I've missed? Thanks. --Michig (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm sorry. I thought I got rid of that. Whatever the user asserted, I think I had the dif's wrong. The user is problematic in any event. Whatever they were trying to say, and they are confusing, there was not any question of you stalking. Just someone who does not seem to understand collaborative work enviroments. Again, sorry for the trouble.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. No problem. --Michig (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

88rising Protections

Hi Dlohcierekim! Thanks for adding a temp page protection to 88rising.

I saw it's for 3 days - after 3 days, is it open to revisions from anonymous / unverified users? Just asking because I'd love to work with you and others to find a longterm solution for the problem mentioned in "What's the best way to work with users who repeatedly remove verifiable content?" in the Wikipedia:Teahouse forum. Gcheng94 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&oldid=881139400"