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 17:34, 16 April 2019 (→88rising Protections). 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

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).

Administrator changes

added Sir Sputnik
readded Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes
removed Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

added Dinoguy1000


CheckUser changes

added AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

added Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Keilana


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 [1] - think you missed [2]. :) 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. [3]
  • 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. [6]
  • 19:40, 13 November: John again deletes NAZI salute section from article. [8]
  • 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." [9]

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 [11] (the status quo, and what me and Lady Junky prefer) or a tweet [12] (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. [13] 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.[18] 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 [19], 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]

@Gcheng94: If problems resume, request longer protection, Conversely, if it is all resolved, request unprotection and reference this thread.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: Thanks for your help! The protections seemed to work, but I noticed an unverified user has a repeated history of (1) only editing the 88rising page without quoting any sources and (2) specifically making edits contrary to verifiable content (ie - removing Jaeson Ma from the "Founder" section of 88rising). What's the best way to ensure only verified users can edit the 88rising page? Thank you! -- Gcheng94 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Can you handle my request in WP:RPP#2019 AFC Asian Cup? Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

I just wanted to mention that I can no longer read your sig, probably the combination of the very bright colors and the very intricate font at a small size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But, but I like anglo saxon MT. my German heritage and all.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if I give it a light blue background. . . .`-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
Not really a big deal. I see on AN/I that you've changed it again - which is better, but still a bit hard to read. I can recognize it by the color sequence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello German (move)

Hello,

I can't move this stadium anymore. The old stadium is now demolished, so it should be only named Stadionul Steaua. [To be renamed Thanks! Christina

And this Stadionul Tudor Vladimirescu (2018) to this please Stadionul Tudor Vladimirescu. Thx

Gia Carangi article

The same editor returned to make the same edit soon after your page protection wore off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carangi REPLIED Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread followup

Hi, you may recall this thread, which ultimately died out because the user seemed to stop editing while it was up, but I noticed they've resumed editing, and while some of their edits are certainly good, they're still continuing with the type that started the thread in the first place. What would you suggest next? Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon Vorbis: Indeffed. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pay you $5

to ditch the hideous yellow background. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For you, anything. And it's gold. Gold. not yellow'' User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 01:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! OK, "gold", sorry. Will you take an IOU for a beer the next time we are in the same metro area? Or do you see thru that little gambit, and want some kind of electronic fund transfer (which to be honest I am unlikely to figure out)? Or a donation to a charity of your choice? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Bitcoin. Whatever that is. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 01:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That newfangled thing where you have 140 characters to insult other people? No wait, that's something else. (*kids not around to ask, so me goes to look up bitcoin in nearby online encyclopedia*) Hey, that looks completely rational and well thought out and seems like a safe investment! Give me a couple of days to convert all of my money into bitcoins and I'll write you a bitcheck (I assume that's what it's called). --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What could go wrong, eh?02:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Institution Saint-Michel

Dear Dlohcierekim, I would like to thank you ever so much for having just recently protected the page I created and fully wrote: Institution Saint-Michel after the severe wave of vandalism it has been subjected to since the 5th of Feb 2019. I would be intrinsically grateful if you could keep an eye on the page and keep blocking those volitionally vandalising it. Warmest wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4HcxdV9x (talk • contribs) 14:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That salted article title

It's rather an insane episode in Wikipedia history. Let's just say it took 14 AfDs, 5 DRVs, a pile of intertwined "sub-articles" that have all now pretty much been deleted/redirected/subsumed into other articles, to get to where we are now. I'm almost inclined to suggest to the editor that he just go with DB (musician) as his article title just to avoid the fecal atmospheric disturbance that is likely to come, because a *lot* of the hundreds of people who have the article on their watchlist will descend, including some very high profile people. And there's a pile of stuff in there that's suppressed, but they were originally oversighted (using the old tool) and we're not certain the conversions took 100%, or that everything that should have been suppressed really was. It was a different time, what can I say. But I do know it was one of the first articles I had on my watchlist. Risker (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Thanks, I was on hiatus and Essjay was gone when I returned. I did remember there was a problem from someone who wanted the article about them down. Hopefully, WMF now has better support for doing that. A take-down should not have been so hard and so damaging. (This is why if I see someone is threatening a lawsuit over content I direct them to BLP/help and the WMF. It's just not a situation amenable to the normal community processes.) Freaking wheel wars and ArbCom. I agree with the naming suggestion and perhaps @Chubbles: will as well. I was able to find enough in archives to piece the story together. Oh, Christ, we don't want to stir this guy up again. And I don't think we need to bring the page back as a redirect or disambiguation page. Let it lie. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm pretty sure he's still watching. And yeah... Risker (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

revdel on UAA?

Hi, I noticed your revision deletion of these two edits on UAA, and I'm a little confused by it. First, I don't see anything that particularly needs revision deletion in them. I mean, the user name is a little crude, but not particularly disruptive. Second, you only revdeled the edit summaries, but the edit summaries are just the auto-completed edit summaries. I can't see anything objectionable in them except for the username itself, which is still visible in the edit itself; presumably, if the username was bad enough to warrant revdeletion from the edit summary, it should be revdeleted from the page content, too. Maybe there's something I'm missing here; what was your rationale for revdeleting here? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: Think it was overkill- maybe a little over sensitive? Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Sharyar not blocked

In the closing comment at WP:ANI#User:Harris Sharyar, you said spam deleted, spammer blocked, but he does not seem to be blocked. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! What? That was my understanding. Thasnk Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: Thanks. Struck Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick block needed for rapid fire vandalism

This IP[20] is blanking a section about once per minute, and has done it like 15 times now. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tornado chaser: @Jayron32: got in ahead of me-- 2019-02-07T04:41:10 Jayron32 (talk . Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I saw that and was looking for your page to let you know you didn't need to do anything, but than I found this rapid fire BLP violator[21]. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornado chaser: Thanks. Holy Fuckwit, Batman! I revdel'd the -BLP. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfAWB

Hey there, I recently submitted an AWB request. Since you're an admin can you please review it? GN-z11 ☎ ★ 18:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GN-z11: I haven't any experience with PERMS. You might want to wait on those people. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking doppelgänger accounts

Hey man! I was just asked by the account holder to update the block settings on his doppelganger accounts and noticed that you blocked them by his request originally. Just sending you an informal note to remember to untick the "autoblock any IP addresses used" box when doing these particular blocks. Else you'll wind up accidentally autoblocking the account holder, which is obviously something we don't want to have happen. ;-) No big deal; I've fixed them, and since the user didn't request an unblock due to an autoblock, nothing seems to have happened (*whew!*) ;-) Cheers, my friend - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing about ping

In case you didn't know, a fix like this [22] doesn't work, all must be perfect in the first edit. More at Help:Fixing failed pings. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Apologies for that, "Disputed content" really would've sufficed there, Many thanks for removing it and for protecting the article, Happy editing. –Davey2010Talk 15:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Haven't trouted since the ice age... So, there's that

--TheWinRat (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thanks

Hey Dlohcierekim, I just wanted to take a moment to say thanks for the work you do at RFPP. It's the only admin noticeboard I frequent these days, and it's always helpful for me to see how other admins are handling situations. I see your name there a lot and appreciate the way you handle things (cracking a joke or three along the way). Keep up the good work! Airplaneman ✈ 19:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help

Hi Dlohcierekim, I wondered if you could help me with something? Back in June, you blocked a user who was repeatedly uploading a logo he'd made to the Chaos Magic page, despite multiple warnings to stop. You can see the details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Modanung#June_2018 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chaos_magic#Chaosphere_Image_in_Masthead_Position

I've just noticed that the same user is uploading the exact same self-created logo to the wikimedia commons page. You can see for yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChaosStarLight.svg#filehistory

I'm not quite sure what to do about it. Can we block this user from wikimedia commons and revert their disruptive edits? Any help or guidance you could give would be very much appreciated. Rune370 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rune370: If they're making disruptive edits you can discuss first on their talk page. If no results, you can post on WP:ANI. As far as Commons goes, there is an admin notice board, but I don't recall how to get to it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still blocked here, so that's a relief. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your help. I'll try that route. Rune370 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charan

Hi, we seem to be having a bit of a problem at the Charan article, ca. 9 February. One of those people - Lalit Jugtawat - has been problematic in the past and may need eyes upon them. Mentioning here because you asked me to do so on their talk page back in October 2018. I woldn't be surprised if there is a bit of meating or socking going on but that is at present just a gut feeling. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted them both and left a further note at article talk. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger Things season 1

Hi, would you mind moving Draft:Stranger Things (season 1) to Stranger Things (season 1). A consensus was reached and the other two drafts for season 2 and 3 were moved but the move for season 1 requires an admin since Stranger Things (season 1) is currently administrator-protected. Thanks! - Brojam (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Brojam (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maple

Hi. Thanks for protecting Maple, Ontario. Could the talk page also be protected for a while; they've moved there. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I answered their question instead. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeep Karakkat

That was quick. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:You're welcome, but I didn't do anything. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged it for A7. Then you untagged it, with which I agree, because it does make a credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Off to SPI. Might be G5able. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

Thanks for applying WP:PCPP to Reverse racism. Maybe I'm confused, but aren't rejected changes not supposed to be visible? Several recent changes that were not accepted are still shown when clicking on the permalinks/diffs, e.g. [23][24][25]. Also, I don't see the WP:WHITELOCK icon on the page. Am I missing something? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably TWINKLE omitted the white lock as I SP'd at the same time. The rejected edits still show in the history but should never have been viewable to readers. I might reapply SP as it looks busy. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2019 (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.Lectonar (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you state this threat on Mark Dice's talk page?

sock back in drawer Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello,

Why did you put this threat on the Mark Dice talk page?

"prompted by recruitment from the subject's YouTube prompting may result in a prompt block from editing"?

Just so you know, no one is "prompted by recruitment" to come here.

If people see something that is obviously unfair, they are going to call those out for their unfair behavior.

People are allowed to freely discuss topics in a dialogue without being threatened because of your status as an administrator in which it appears you are unfairly going to take advantage of in order to silence speech that you personally don't agree with, but which doesn't violate any sort of rules or policies or terms of service or even guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macquan1 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Tell dice I said "hi!". Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://xkcd.com/1357/ Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That particular puppet was blocked by CU. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Deepfriedokra. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

331dot (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shamima Begum

Hi there. Thanks for protecting. I think I may have jumped the gun with the names. After looking at the older sources in more detail, it actually seems Shamina/Sharmeena is a person separate to Shamima that is in the new at the moment. Shall I move again (not sure I can do that now it's protected)? Shamima Begum should redirect to Amira Abase, Shamima Begum and Kadiza Sultana and current Shamima Begum should probably be moved to Sharmeena Begum. All rather confusing. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 21:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: I am utterly confused. Which is the one currebtly in the news? Is there an article about someone not in the news. What needs to go where? 21:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gad. Do we need t o seperate edit hsitorries21:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
ShamiMa Begum is widely covered in the news in the UK right now. The Home Office has announced she's being stripped off her citizenship. She's part of the group of 3 school children from Bethnal Green who left for Syria in 2015. The story is consistent with BBC and Channel4 News coverage. Shamina (also spelled Sharmeena) Begum is another person that that is unrelated. It does not help that she's the same age, lived in the same area of London and also left for Syria at around the same time. The article called Shamima Begum is about Sharmeena. She is not the current attention of media. Shamima is only covered in Amira Abase, Shamima Begum and Kadiza Sultana. No doubt, Shamima Begum is sufficiently notable for her own article that is yet to be written. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk
OK can you create a redirect for the one and then place hat notes at the tops to distinguish the two? Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So move Shamima Begum to Sharmeena Begum? Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the Barnstar. Much appreciated! Although I feel I'm partly to blame for the confusion :). I think this is all in order now. No doubt, there will be more edits all over the place with this, given it's very topical and will be for a while. I'll watchlist the articles. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 21:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with disruptive editor

User:‎Mirkhwand has again removed sourced content from Mubarak Ali Gilani. He refuses to engage on talk page to arrive at a consensus.

Yesterday you had warned him but it seems to have no effect. Is there a way to resolve this?--Xzinger (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See article talk page. Dlohcierekim (talk)
Replied on article talk page.--Xzinger (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 😂

When I mouse over WP:ANI, the lead image... perfect... Leviv ich 06:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Esteban Vélez: Corruption in the defense of false content

user urged to discuss on article talk or AfD and to be mindfull of WP:CANVASS. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, can you please check the website of Sergio Esteban Velez to verify that most of the information stored there is false and that the links to external links are down or no longer exist. I do not do it of ill will but it is evident that this wikipedia page only makes propaganda in the name of a person that does not represent any person minimally prominent in Colombian art, literature or poetry and I speak with full knowledge of the cause.


I do not care if they block the edition, it's just that I'm upset that there's a history of having deleted that same page in Colombia and it does not exist anymore, but it's still available for other languages, when there's no alternative review of the information there . Anyway, I'll get in touch with people who are interested in reviewing that fake Wikipedia article.

Sergio Esteban Vélez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsebastian1501 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC) @Jsebastian1501: Please be mindful of WP:canvass and WP:sock. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC) @Jsebastian1501: If you have a problem with the article you should start a discussion on the talk page. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC) @Dlohcierekim:Simply frustrating, I will consider stopping using Wikipedia. Thank you![reply]

@Dlohcierekim:There is already an old discussion that simply nobody follows because the person of the article in question really is not relevant.

@Jsebastian1501: If you are referring to the prior AfD, it closed as "keep" "no consensus" a long time ago. You will need to start a new one. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergio Vélez Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:The wikipedia in Spanish if you closed the article in question, the author is supposedly relevant in the Spanish language, has never written in English. It is more evident that the article is less relevant in English than Spanish. At least you already convinced me that Wilipedia will never be reliable. Thank you.

Civility and casting aspersions

Combatants are urged to carry on at ANI. Sabres at dawn at 10 paces, I think. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, since I noticed you're online... In the AE thread about me, Volunteer Marek has casted aspersions about me and claimed I game the system, as you can see here, [26] under the Volunteer Marek section, I don't want to open a whole AE action or post to ANI since that is a whole drama fest. I do want this resolved and I would like a one way IBAN since he has been gunning for me for a while, he brought an AE action against me a while back that got shot down. But can you please warn him or do something about the aspersions? Saying that 1RR doesn't apply to a page that 1RR doesn't apply to is not gaming the system. Thanks.Sir Joseph (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: Sorry no. You and @Volunteer Marek: need to take this to ANI. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ANI says, "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Can't you just tell him to lay off me and stop with the casting of aspersions? Nothing ever good comes from going to ANI. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: Not my job or my role. And my talk page is certainly not the venue. ANI, AE, whatever. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of WP:ASPERSIONS, what do you think the following is: "he has been gunning for me for a while". Diffs please. Or stop the obnoxious hypocrisy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out

Hi. I saw your message re: the NJ IP and WP:OUT. I tried to stop short at the information I would have provided for an SPI report, doing it at the existing AN/I thread for expediency and context. Should I have just stopped at reporting the suspected sock IP and let a CU/admin do the legwork (which took a minute or twenty)? Should I edit/remove it? Just trying to help out . —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: I don't know. I just cannot be sure it's OK. Following the Alex Shih debacle, I'm much more circumspect. It might be best to remove that content and contact a CU via email. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yamla or someone said it's OK. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General question unrelated to anything specific

I don't suppose you mean Bill Clinton's cat? Dlohcierekim (talk)

Kind of a "how does Wikipedia work" question: what does it "mean" when two or more brand-new accounts suddenly show up at some obscure article and start edit-warring over something? Are these actual people or socks (usually)? How do they learn so quick to be able to edit war? (I know, funny question coming from me.) Why could some real-world incident motivate some non-WP-editors to register accounts and start edit-warring, but not motivate any established editors to edit the article? Or are these situations like two bot-farms fighting? What is the usual explanation for this weird behavior? Leviv ich 23:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many reasons. Link me the article. One day I need to ask for checkuser. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the Interwebz, no one knows you're really a cat. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Signature Bank, since Nov 2018. And note it's not apparently attracting any regulars, though there is no shortage of regulars who edit "Trump stuff." Leviv ich 23:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BF93 was not really new-- blocked as a sock. Welltraveled might be as well, but AGF, I could be wrong. Could just be trying to clean up the article. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“Vilating” was more betterer...

...as me old First Sergeant used to say. Some typos should be kept, and cherished, for the found art that they are. Qwirkle (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citing

You recently sent me a message that said i need to have my information cited from a reliable source. I am new to wikipedia and was unaware that you had to have all edits cited. I am not really sure how to do this, could you please sent me instructions on how to cite your editing? Thanks! --AHastings53 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (replying on users talk as that is where we started) DlohCierekim (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akhyauhinee theatre

Why are u deleted our cultural page Arko pal (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arko pal: Deleted as SPAM. Please see the notice I left on your talk. DlohCierekim (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary redaction

Hi, can you check if the edit summary in this edit on a BLP article warrants redaction under RD3? Since the intention was to disrupt using only the edit summary, WP:DENY might also be an additional justification. —Gazoth (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Pell

I cannot make this change as I would become involved. It does not require the admin toolset. And in any event, I do not edit Wikidata. This issue is complex and will require discussion 1) at Wikidata 2) at Talk:George Pell 3) at BLPN. Please continue in those venues. Cheers DlohCierekim (talk) 19:45, 27 February 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.

I suggest that the tags "Local description, Australian convicted sex offender and Cardinal of the Catholic Church" and "Central description, Australian Catholic cardinal and convicted sex offender" at here should be removed until his appeal is heard by a panel of judges. It may not have been possible for him to get a fair trial amid the media hype that weighed on the jury at his trial. I suggest that this would be part of the care we exert n biographies of living persons, when credible arguments have been advanced against the conviction. If this change in the info page can be effected by me, please tell me how. Jzsj (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzsj: I can't seem to change it either. Is it transcluded from meta somewhere? At any rate, as I protected the thing I should not make changes as I would be "involved". DlohCierekim (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back. I'll try the Help desk. Jzsj (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) A few things, there's no such thing as transclusion from meta in this context. It's from Wikidata, as indicated in the link. Second the argument that this should be removed because it's a BLP and he is appealing it is irrelevant - many people who are convicted of various crimes appeal their conviction or sentencing. Some are successful and some aren't but merely filing an appeal is ultimately irrelevant unless and until it's successful. I personally don't think it should be removed until such a time that has happened but more importantly I don't think that any of our three opinions should be used unilaterally to make changes to such a controversial article without adequate input from the community. Jzsj You should open a discussion here on the talk page of the article in question with adequate sources and reasoning why the change should be made and once that has concluded, if consensus has been reached to change it, you'll need to open an RFC on wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for comment for 30 days. I'll also note as Huon mentioned to you, Wikipedia isn't in the business of second guessing juries. He has been convicted, if that changes, the article can be changed but just because someone doubts it, doesn't make it untrue or unencyclopedic. Praxidicae (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given this is a controversial subject, a handful of editor opinions shouldn't be dictating what happens but policy wise, I think that mine and Huon's, as well as others logic is sound. He is convicted currently, lodging an appeal doesn't mean the conviction is wrong until such a time it's overturned, if it is. We wouldn't change Ted Bundy's local description from 20th century serial killer (if he were alive) because he disputed it and was appealing his conviction. Praxidicae (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I began this I didn't think it would be controversial, given WP:BLP. Going through a 30-day discussion would not be a solution, and apparently ordinary editors have no access to Information pages, which was the whole substance of my original inquiry: "How does one change an 'Information for (name of person)' page? that is accessed from the list on the right of Wikipedia pages?". Thanks for your input. Jzsj (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are mischaracterizing what you're asking and what you were told. You asked how to change the local description which is generated from Wikidata - you do that by editing it on Wikidata. However as explained, you'd be required to achieve consensus to change this as it's controversial and contested. This has nothing to do with "ordinary editors" versus admins or veteran editors. Anyone can change it but it needs to be within consensus which is why you'd need to achieve local consensus first. Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 27 February 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.

RD2 edit summary revdel needed on aisle 7

Howdy, Dlohcierekim! You appear to be at your keyboard based on the recent-changes feed; kindly take a look at [27], if you don't mind, and if you agree that something should be done about that edit summary, would you please wave your magic admin wand over it? Thank you! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DlohCierekim (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! The racist edit summary is still coming up for me; do I just need to purge my cache? (Anatomically unpleasant as that sounds...) - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The full picture

Regarding your message here they claimed they were not the same editor here, which I noted was exceedingly unlikely here. I wouldn't waste to much time trying to educate either of these accounts on the sock policy.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Saw your message they blanked after all that. Just dying to see if they can answer my questions. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They came to my attention initially by using (and butchering) CU and Arb templates in their userspace. I have no clue who they are, but they're not new and they're not here to improve the encyclopedia. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: yeah. If they want to play, there are other venues. The games I play, the other user doesn't get to reset or get additional lives. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

letter!

please check on [[|User talk:Es204L#Big true|talk page]] to tell my true. --Es204L (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

my true

i edit only for the truth that happens in the future weather, errors, sources. also i understand what I've done wrong since october 2018, and i sincerely regret my actions, i'll be sure to never act in such a manner ever again --Es204L (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Can you take a look at this article please? there is a user who is trying to edit by force an article without reaching a consensus in the talk page.

there was initially a problem between 2 users(AZSH and M.Bitton), they have both asked for a 3rd opinion to solve the problem. the user ReconditeRodent gave his (3rd) opinion in the two discussions (January 2019 and Specific Questions).

ReconditeRodent has proposed a 1st version which was accepted by AZSH and refused by M.Bitton

they later on proposed a 2nd version which was refused by AZSH and accepted by M.Bitton.

therefore there was a failure to reach a consensus.

Instead of looking for another way to solve the problem(Dispute resolution), the user M.Bitton started editing the article and applied all of his proposals and did not apply any proposals of AZSH.

There was a comment left on the talk page on January 30th asking the user M.Bitton to revert his edit. M.Bitton refused to revert his edits and refused to answer in the talk page.

around a month later AZSH reverted the article to its original version and got blocked due to that. The article has not yeen been returned to its original version. Thank you--105.155.81.249 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A ghastly pall"

May I just say that I really applaud the way you use language, not just in that diff but generally across Wikipedia talkpages. It always gives me cause for pleasure when I see your comments; they are musical. Yunshui 雲水 10:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad day"

You betcha.

Well, maybe not so bad. It snowed here and I don't have to work.

Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Thewinrat's talk page.
Message added 16:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TheWinRatHere! 16:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness gracious

Hello D. The pic that you added to the ANI thread is sweet :-) I think Andy Dingley's suggestion about creating WP:DIDGERIDOO is a must. It might include a double entendre section regarding didgeridoo-do. Groan. If not a whole essay it is at least worthy of a mention at WP:BJAODN. Thanks for the smile and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sudeep Karat

Hi, Could you please check whether there is any issue with the references & content ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sudeep_Karat — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2share (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K2share: IMHO, does not have enough significant coverage in sufficient depth to meet relevant notability requirements for an encyclopedia article. DlohCierekim 13:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: What about this article? Does it meet relevant notability requirements ?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomichan_Mulakuppadam
Doubt it. Looks pretty skimpy to me. We have a lot of cruft about non notable people. Don't need more. As Sudeep Karat is at AfC, you should let the reviewers there review it. DlohCierekim 13:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BaileyJillSmith

Please unblock User:BaileyJillSmith, whom you blocked for username reasons, prior to their name change, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Unblocked by Bilby. DlohCierekim

the Wizard

Hello! I want to thank you for your bold close at the AN/I. I see that you understood exactly what I meant by "nobody wants to indef him". Actually lots of people said they wanted to indef him. What I meant is that nobody wants to be the admin to do it. When you put your admin hat on and think about actually doing it, it's not so easy. Indef him, on his first appearance at ANI? Without any escalating series of smaller blocks? For CIR??? Sure, we do that kind of thing all the time for vandalism-only accounts, but that's not what this is. And maybe he will calm down and learn to be productive; stranger metamorphoses have happened. (One of my early mentees started out as a vandalism-only, confirmed sockpuppet. He made a Clean Start and became a model Wikipedian, even worked for WMF for a while.) Right now the Wizard is studying Wikipedia 1A and practicing at his talk page so there may be hope. I thank you for giving him a (last?) chance to fit in here. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this decision, in the sense that I was in favor of an indef, and there was consensus for an indef, and it was basically a supervote. If I hadn't been concerned about an admin participating in the discussion closing it, I certainly would have been willing to block him days ago for the trolling on Natureium's talk page, so it is definitely not true that no one was willing to block him. And it's a little insulting to the people who took time to evaluate the situation and recommend an indef block. But I'm aware that ANI is a cesspit, with regular denizens who vote to indef block everyone; I'm not sure how many of us actually did evaluate the situation. And to be completely honest, I've done this too; I once saw hope for an editor who, by all rights, was going to be indef'd at ANI, and instead closed it as "one final chance" and spent time explaining policies and guidelines and setting him on the right path. He was subsequently blocked for massive sockpuppetry, of course... So anyway, I don't plan on challenging the decision, but I do think you'd be doing him a favor by making very clear (or asking MelanieN to make it very clear) how close he came to getting indef blocked, and make sure he understands why (right now, his latest explanation is because we're all haters). I will certainly block him the very next time he trolls someone, without returning to ANI first. I'm fairly confident that I'd just be causing trouble by making that clear myself, but he needs to know; one of you two should do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN I really didn't want to see him indeffed but was shocked to see it closed without even the proposed TBAN which felt like some good structure for Wizard. I'm glad you're working with him as he's clearly intelligent and will hopefully steer him right even if there's not a formal TBAN in place. I hope your efforts are successful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I think they're either too young or too inexperienced, I think, unless they're actually a troll, which will be easily seen, time will tell on both? ——SerialNumber54129 23:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN, Floquenbeam, Serial Number 54129, and Barkeep49: It certainly was not an easy decision to close. I too felt that an indef was the way to go after seeing their talk page as it was when I changed to indef in the discussion. (It was not a supervote. If it were, I would have indeffed.) But a number of people wanted a TBAN; there was no clear consensus either way. And no one stepped forward to do the dirty, necessary deed. If you read closely, though, I closed it as "in abeyance"-- to be taken up again if the situation warrants. It can certainly be reopened if the decision was wrong to close as I did. The 1 week block will end unless someone boldly intervenes. MelanieN has her work cut out for her. And if things go far better than I expect, we'll have a constructive editor rather than another another CBAN'd ex-user. Serial Number 54129, I think, has struck the nail squarely on the head. If Wizard is now snitting because they lack that indefinable and elusive essence to see their problems and to see this is an undeserved boon, we will be back to ANI soon enough. And if that happens, new user or not, then they may well wind up with a CBAN. DlohCierekim 03:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: we will be back to ANI soon enough. Or maybe not. If he offends again, I think it is quite likely that someone will just unilaterally block him. Of course that would not be a CBAN and could potentially be reversed at some future time, but keeping that option open might be a good thing. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watching non-administrator peon comment) If there's a problem in the future, it seems an indef block by an admin (as opposed to an ANI report) would save a lot of editors a lot of time and be better for the blocked editor, as a future unblock request reviewed by an admin familiar with the details of this case in the quiet of the editor's talk page would seem preferable to the rancor of ANI. Leviv ich 18:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302

Why have you unmarked it as patrolled? Accept it was not that good at creation. I do normally like to create at least a start class article (check my recent creations on French railways) but this was a rare exception. I thought it better to get the bare bones up as it was a breaking news story. A decision that has proven to be correct as many editors have helped bash it into fine shape. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Stupid software. I thought I remarked it as patrolled. DlohCierekim 19:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal Mjroots (talk)

Image source problem with File:Mustang on mustang steering wheel01.JPG

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Mustang on mustang steering wheel01.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 03:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones: Thanks. Got rid of it. Didn't think of that. DlohCierekim 03:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easily done :-) Ronhjones  (Talk) 04:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies!

Cookies!

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

Thanks for boldly closing the ANI and trusting me. I won't dissapoint. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

IMPORTANT

I would like to make changes to the Sammy Guevara page. i actuality know him and he told me some of the info is incorrect i would like to make changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob43215 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob43215: That's nice, but Wikipedia relies on information from published sources with verifiable information, not personal knowledge or assertions by subjects. Please discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help for more information. Please see User:Dlohcierekim#42. DlohCierekim 12:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bullyology

Hi - I am a copywriter who was asked by a book author to create a short Wikipedia page for her on the term Bullyology (I'm doing this gratis - no payment, as a favour). She gave me her username and password to use to create the submission. Should I be creating my own username and password instead for this submission? Also, the original submission was deleted, apparently as 'unambiguous advertising'. I would like to know SPECIFICALLY which parts are unacceptable to Wikipedia, so I can change or remove them. Thanks! Here's the original submission: Bullyology (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bullyology:Welp. Even if you are doing it as a favor or goodwill, I still think you need to read and head WP:PAID. Even if, like so many writers, you are doing it for "exposure". (we've all seen that phrase at one time or another, eh?) At the very least you need to read and heed WP:COI. Please read 42 on my user page. None of your sources meet that. The whole bloody thing looked like ad copy. Hence the need to start from scratch. You need declarative neutral statements supported by reliable sources unconnected with the publisher, the agent, the author, the subject. And you need a significant number of reliable sources that treat the subject in depth. A quick google search showed some promising hits, whether they are adequate, I cannot tell quickly. And, OMG yes, that username is not acceptable as it is promotional and yes, you need your own username and password. It need not be your real name. Few of us use our real names. A catchy adjective/adverb-noun/verb combination adds a certain pizzazz. I will be blocking that username, BTW, as it is the name of a business and so forth. There will be instructions for unblocking. It is likely you will not be allowed to create a page on that subject. DlohCierekim 16:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bullyology

Hi -

Thanks for explaining why my submission (Bullyology) was deleted. You mentioned it sounds like ad copy. Not my intention - everything in the original submission is factual and un-embellished. Okay, so where do I go from here? I've created my own account now, for starters, as hers (Bullyology) was deemed unacceptable. No problem.

There is a legitimate (and successful) business in Australia, and a professional anti-bullying methodology associated with it, run by one of the most respected anti-bullying advocates (and authors) on the planet. It is called Bullyology and has been around since 2017. Are you saying that the owner can't even create (or have created - I'm her copywriter) a submission for Wikipedia for the term Bullyology (which she has trademarked, by the way)? I'll admit I'm new to Wikipedia, but that seems insane to me. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, is it not? I'm happy to even have a one line submission, but I have no idea where to start now. Sounds like I'll run into a dead end whatever I do.

Suggestions welcome.

Cheers, Kevin Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullyology (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bullyology: I see you forgot to block you. You'll need to rename. I'm leaving open the option for you to create the article as the subject may be notable. You'll need to follow the WP:AfC process. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with notability requirements, but you might be able to find enough sources. You will need to rename, though. DlohCierekim 13:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KCasey55: Oh, I see you renamed. Oshwah's a good source for information. DlohCierekim 13:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection request for Big Brother Canada (season 7)

I don't know if this is the right spot to ask, but can you please semi-protect the page Big Brother Canada (season 7) at least until the season is over in late May? There is a lot of vandalism happening from IP editors. Thanks! Jayab314 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayab314: semi protected DlohCierekim 13:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Chandru Obaiah biography article

{ please recover my page }}

{ March 2019

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself, at Chandru obaiah. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of User:Chandruobaiah/sandbox

A tag has been placed on User:Chandruobaiah/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cabayi (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC) }} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandruobaiah (talk • contribs)

undeletion chandru obaiah biophysics article

Hi there. Realised that you've submitted a speedy deletion on the article Chandr Obaiah. 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 chandru obaiah is very prominent music director in kannada film industry as if you want more information about him please research in google about him and give chance publish this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandruobaiah (talk • contribs) 02:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chandruobaiah: Sorry, that was spam. I see a main space page was also deleted as spam. As to searching for sources, I leave that to you. You must find sourcing not connected with the subject. The subject's web page and other social media pages make it spammy. If you are someone else, then why are you editing in there name. Plese read and heed WP:COI and WP:PAID if they apply. DlohCierekim 13:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Phnom Penh International Airport

Hi Dlohcierekim, wondering if you could help out. You recently made Phnom Penh International Airport semi-protected. However the vandalising user has resorted from using an IP to using an account and is persistently bombarding the article with unsourced and false content despite multiple warnings threatening of a block. Both myself and @Andrewgprout: have been restoring this article and I believe an intervention from an admin is needed here to put a stop to it. Ajf773 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion chandru obaiah biophysics article

@Dlohcierekim sir I am not someone else I am chandru Obaiah myself I am writing this article. Please help me to publish article. WORKING AS MUSI DIRECTOR IN Kannada Film Industry from 2016. Please search about me in google or I am attaching some links here please go through sir. GIVE SOME IDEAS TO PUBLISH MY ARTICLE I can do it.

Its upto you sir. I never force you its my try thats all

Thank you for your kind response...

@Chandruobaiah: Welp. None of those are reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Writing about oneself is not a good idea. Please see User:dlohcierekim/u5 and User:dlohcierekim/g11 for more information. Sorry, I cannot help you. DlohCierekim 18:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive username

Per WP:ATTACKNAME, I believe this user has created a username that violates this policy. Could you take administrative action? Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user may be a sock, or an associate, given their rear end themed usernames. I think it's also violation of WP:USERNAME. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked already. DlohCierekim 04:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/* Claims of Fraud and Violence */

I restored this deletion. The claims of fraud have four citations from legit sources that have documented several people with legal judgments against Stephen Martines. The claim of violence is also backed up by public documents. There are more sources that could be cited. He is a notable individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxer500 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Boxer500 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boxer500: The material in question is under discussion at Talk:Stephen Martines. Please join the discussion there before you restore the material. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anupkb16n

I've directly reverted this user so consider myself involved; would you mind casting an eye over their recent edits at Sujit Mondal and making a decision on whether a block is necessary? Cheer, Yunshui 雲水 09:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: I warned them a month ago and now they are back at it. Gave 'em a final warning. Can we remove Twinkle? They are misusing it. DlohCierekim 10:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we can do that anymore, now that its a user preference... I guess you could perhaps disable it in their .js options and then lock their .js page, but that seems like a hacky way of doing it. Yunshui 雲水 10:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting of Richard2130 and Sjo

Dear sir thank you for protecting the Bros when will I be famous, however I liked to raise concerns on the above members I noticed they disrupt a lot of pages on wiki especially bros related, I find this strange as if you look at the behaviour, let say Richard3120 he will revert something and if it gets undone by the member who posted within few minutes Sjo reverts the same content believe their the same person and its unfair they are allowed to remove important content. Wikipedia is for everyone and just for the few, so Ive read and checked the polices and it states wiki and its sister sites clearly state that reference, from BOOK, NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES are allowed and the information does not have to found on the internet.

Richard3120 and Sjo remove content because they don't agree with it, yet on looking threw history they never provide a evidence or source to disprove the content in stead they seem to make allegation against new member and consistently disrupt pages till they get their own way. I feel this unfair could you please investigate these to member, as member are being targeted by these two or maybe one .

I thank you for your time

Heather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.151.97 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links and dif's would be helpful. DlohCierekim 17:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how do I provide you links I could provide with the names of the pages they been know to disruptive

Bros - when When will I be famous bros too Much Bros if you look at the history you will see their behaviour, what I don't understand information on bros come from pop magazines from 1987- 1992 also from publication like SKY magazine, newspapers, official annuals, book etc, I know other pages on wiki use articles that been uploaded to chart position, and tour information, but because of their disruption the pages get protected unfairly

thank you for helping me I really do apricate it.

Heather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.151.121 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Page

Could you please provide the reasoning for the deletion of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorien_Health_Services&action=edit&redlink=1 ? I requested a redirect to be set up and it seems that once that was put in place the page was deleted. Mghus (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mghus: It was deleted per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. No assertion of significance, a lower standard than notability and unambiguopusly promotional content. DlohCierekim 14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to retrieve the content that was on the page at least? Mghus (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mghus: Certainly. Emailed. Please see User:dlohcierekim/g12 for some guidance has to how not to create a G11 page. Please see WP:CORP, the notability requirement for articles about companies. Please use the WP:AfC process to avoid the frustration of repeated deletion. DlohCierekim 16:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help! Mghus (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFA being vandalised

Please address/resolve this page protection request. Dan56 (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nsmutte

I've just familiarized myself with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. Thanks for your quick action. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi as per self request

Sir, Can explain why protecting the article, Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi and his self declared University, Darul Huda Islamic University as per request of Self promoting account, Nadwi Kooriyad. The Nadwi is the last name of Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi and the Kooriyad is his birth place. MalayaliWoman (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MalayaliWoman: Thanks for your note. Unclear. If you wish to make an edit that the PP prevents, please make an edit request on the talk page. Please be aware that all content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. DlohCierekim 17:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection error for "Strong Europe Tank Challenge"

Hi. Because of continued vandalism, three days ago, I see you changed the protection on Strong Europe Tank Challenge from "pending changes" (set to expire 9 September 2019) to something else (set to expire after 3 days). I'm not sure that's what you intended, since it now has no protection again. (Hohum @) 18:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, I was assuming "pending changes" is protection in the same sense. It looks like it is still active, just not sure what help the three day protection did for a page which has long term vandalism issues. (Hohum @) 18:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hohum: Thanks for your note. As these's been no vandalism since the SP expired, the purpose has been served. The PC will allow constructive non auto-confirmed editors to contribute while preventing vandalism from getting through. If the vandalism level overwhelms the PC reviewers, we can restore SP again. DlohCierekim 17:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Protection

Can you please raise the protection level here [28] since sock has got a new registered account?-Kishfan (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kishfan: Thanks for your note. I see no unconstructive edits since I SP'd the page. SP will stop a new user. It might be more constructive to report a new sockpuppet at WP:SPI instead of making the page uneditable by a huge number of editors. DlohCierekim 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. I have done it. Is it [29] fine? In case you have time to see (:.-Kishfan (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism - Admin Help Needed

Dear Dlohcierekim, Hello, I would need your help as an admin as I have just noticed that 3 days ago a user started to progressively go through the list of articles I created / mostly contributed to and deleted substantial portions of them and it seems that the user will go on with all the articles. I do not know what to do. I am really shocked to see my work deleted. Could you please help me? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bakazaka&target=Bakazaka first articles targeted: Screen Studies Group, London École Saint-Joseph European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights and Democratisation Lamour Mill, Briastre Thank you so much in advance.------------ 06:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4HcxdV9x (talk • contribs) @4HcxdV9x: Have you discussed with them? Looks like clean-up to me. Unsourced content, content sourced to social media, and trivia are often removed as part of clean-up. DlohCierekim 13:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ghostlight Ensemble Theatre

Thanks for that. Just so you know, I attempted to move to draft, but was blocked by the existing draft. A11 seemed the only alternative, since the group may very well be notable. Onel5969 TT me 23:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: My pleasure. DlohCierekim 00:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Athikkadai

Hello, Dlohcierekim. You have already protected the Athikkadai page once, and I ask you if you could take another look at it, that user does not seem to have any intention of giving up. Thanks in advance. Super Ψ Dro 14:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Is the revdel template an admin tool, or is it available to NPP and other editors? Atsme Talk 📧 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, you had apparently protected this article, until "21 March 2020" per your edit summary, but a bot indicated that the protection expired the other day, and immediately after an IP made the problematic edits. Could you please re-check the protection status? Thanks. - wolf 22:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Got distracted by the sumbitch that tried to hijack my account. Current protection level: Pending Changes: autoconfirmed (expires Sat, 21 Mar 2020 13:52:57 GMT). appears to be working. DlohCierekim 16:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Dear Admin, I would need your help as an administrator for the article: Isabelle Adjani as I disagree with another user about his deletion of a specific sub-section I added. Thank you so much in advance. Please read User_talk:DarinaeManzani--DarinaeManzani (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Official Cabal Decree

Stop icon This is your final warning. You may be expelled from the administrator cabal if you do not stop your disruptive administrating. Your recent actions show that you are seriously deficient in one or more of the following cabal quotas:

Administrators who do not believe they are able to meet these expectations may request removal of admin rights at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. If you continue to disrupt admin hegemony, you may be expelled without further warning. Leviv ich 06:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Why was my edit on the Killing Stalking page deleted? It wasn't vandalism, I edited infos from the Manhwa in and it was kept deleted by another User. Bumxnd (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bumxnd:Thanks for your note. It was a freakin' mess. Please do not use nowiki tags inappropriately. DlohCierekim 13:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bumxnd: PS. You've been edit warring on that page. Time now to discuss your changes on the article talk. Please achieve consensus before adding them back. DlohCierekim 13:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to use nowiki tags inappropriately, sorry.

I was editing infos from the Manhwa in, but someone was keep changing my edits so I undit theirs. Bumxnd (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bumxnd: Indeed. This is called edit warring. Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. Thanks. DlohCierekim 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a 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. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&oldid=892756461"