Jump to content

User talk:JBW/Archive 82

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

Renaming

I would definitely take up the opportunity...but I am also part of the global WP:2FA testing pool, so my major concern is if my account is renamed, I'd be locked out since my 2FA code is going to a place it wasn't designed to, which adds an additional complication to the process, so before I go forward I need to know if it's best to turn 2FA off temporarily. Nate • (chatter) 22:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nate: I would have thought that 2FA would link to an account, rather than a username, but I don't actually know, so it’s best to avoid any risk by keeping clear. I suppose you could create an alternative account just to test this, knowing that if you lose access to that account it won't matter, but you may not think it worth the bother. Anyway, it's obviously up to you: the offer stands if you choose to take it up. JBW (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I did go ahead and turn it off so it can go through unencumbered (unfortunately all the good alt-account names were claimed by blocked socks of other users 😂). I just want to make sure before I say go that this is global on all WP projects? "MrSchimpf" would be my preferred casing. Nate • (chatter) 23:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
If you mean that you just want to make sure before you say go that the renaming is global on all WP projects, then yes it is. I'm afraid that the problem of all the other names having been made unavailable is a common one, and increasingly common as time goes by and more and more usernames get used up. This applies even to perfectly innocent usernames, but even more so to names which imitate those of well-established editors. Every so often, maybe once every couple of years or so, just for interest I check for usernames resembling JBW or JamesBWatson. Each time there are more than the last time I checked, and most of them have been quietly blocked without my even knowing about it. Anyway, getting back on topic, let me know if you decide to go ahead with being globally renamed. I will take responsibility for the renaming, but it's up to you to make sure the 2FA is OK, because I just don't know enough about how it works. JBW (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Then we're good; I have turned off the 2FA (which was specific to the name), so we're good to go. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, James! All went well and outside a sig update and some bookmark and password changes, back to normal here and 2FA re-enabled, no bumps seen. Nate • (chatter) 01:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Anar Jayesh Patel

Hi @JBW: I see that a bio of a living person that I edited has been deleted and I wish to see her bio on Wikipedia. Draft:Anar Jayesh Patel, was deleted by you on December 17 for "unambiguous advertising or promotion." I had been editing this page for a few weeks now to remove the third party external links and content that is not properly referenced that were added by the original creator and corrected the page tone for the neutral point of view removing most of the text that was glorifying the person instead of conveying the context. I had spent a considerable time on this as I was one of the beneficiary of an education cum internship program 4 years ago led by her.

This is definitely not SPAM even though this person is not yet a very famous personality politician or film actor but she is a real living person who manages not for profit organizations from over 20 years and also runs a real estate company. She is the daughter of the Hon'ble Governor of an Indian state and had been awarded by Govt. of India for her works. As far as I remember there are no links to her businesses or anything that could cause any benefit to her or her businesses.

Few weeks ago, I had requested for help on the Wiki IRC but didn't get any help on improving this page as most of them are busy and not related to India given the timezone I asked for help.

Is there a way I could have this article restored or, at the very least, a way that I could discuss this issue or to make further edits so it doesn't appear as an ad or promotion so that the article may be restored?

Thank you for your time. - TwentyTwentyTwo2022 (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@TwentyTwentyTwo2022: The draft was nominated for speedy deletion as promotional by Bbb23. I reviewed the nomination, and totally agreed with him. By no stretch of the imagination was the page written from a neutral point of view, as a Wikipedia article should be. It was a glowing account of Anar Jayesh Patel, which left no doubt whatever that it was written by someone who holds a high opinion of her and her work, and wishes to persuade the reader that she is a noble person doing good work. It should be impossible for anyone to tell by reading a Wikipedia article whether it was written by someone who holds a good opinion, a bad opinion, or no opinion at all of the subject that the article is about. To become suitable to be a Wikipedia article it would need a complete rewrite, not just a few minor adjustments. However, here are some further comments relating to the draft, which I hope may be of some help to you.
Checking the history of the article, I see that you have removed a little of the most blatantly promotional material, but what is left is still unambiguously promotional. The fact that you have twice submitted the draft for review in substantially its present form suggests that you may be unable to see its promotional nature. That would not be at all surprising, because you describe yourself as a beneficiary of her work, and say that you created your account specifically to write about her. Experience over the years shows that anyone in that kind of situation is very likely to be so closely involved with their admiration for the subject they are writing about that they are unable to stand back from writing on the subject, and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an uninvolved outsider. Consequently they are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to edit the text to make it neutral, even if they sincerely believe they are doing so. That is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest discourages editing on any subject to which one has such a personal connection. If you have not already done so then you should read that guideline before doing any more editing.
Four reviewers have all declined submissions of the draft because of inadequate sourcing. I have not completely read all of the cited references in the draft, but I have briefly skimmed through several of them, and I have also made a brief search of my own for better sources. Because of the brief nature of my checks I can’t provide any definitive conclusion, but on the basis of what I have seen, I am doubtful whether any article on the subject would survive a deletion discussion, because of a lack of sufficient notability. Please note that I am not saying that in my own opinion there should not be an article about Anar Jayesh Patel, I am just saying that there might well be a consensus to delete such an article if it were to be taken to a deletion discussion.
If, after having read what I have written, you still think it worth spending more of your time on trying to improve the draft, rhen I will restore it for you, but I think it only fair to warn you that I think doing so is likely to be a waste of your time, since, for the reasons I have given, it is likely that you would not be able to get the draft into a form which would become established as an article. In my opinion, if Anar Jayesh Patel satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which she may or may not) then your best chance of your getting an article about her established would be to leave it, and do other editing unrelated to her, and come back to it when you have enough experience of Wikipedia's standards to know what is likely to be acceptable. Probably that advice won't appeal to you, as your only purpose in becoming a Wikipedian was to write about her, but I offer it to you for consideration. As I said above, if after reading my comments, and despite my advice, you wish to spend more of your time on trying to improve the draft, then let me know and I will restore it. JBW (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @JBW: Thank you for the quick reply and sharing Wiki guides on notability, COI and nPoV. I had reviewed them again along with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
I hesitated to delete other sections without reliable references initially as I was cautious about being called out a vandal and I was only looking into the aspect of removing third party links that could benefit the websites being linked to. In the process, I missed out on the glorifying content itself. I tried to get help but didn't receive a reply on IRC despite waiting 4+ hours due to timezone differences.
Please restore the article and I would try my best to rewrite/concise it without bias and make it a helpful and readable Wikipedia article rather than the promotional essay it is in its present form. I will come back for your inputs before submitting for another review as I am not in a rush. I would like to improve my Wikipedia editing skills and not abandon just because the article was deleted. - TwentyTwentyTwo2022 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@TwentyTwentyTwo2022: OK, I've restored the draft. Good luck with working to improve it. I wouldn't worry about being accused of vandalism. The draft needs very substantial changes to make it suitable. JBW (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@JBWThank you for restoring the draft. How do I unsubmit it for review as I still see it pending for review? TwentyTwentyTwo2022 (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: I rewrote the article draft. Please go through the same at your convenience and share your inputs. Thank you. TwentyTwentyTwo2022 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Eyehospitalindelhi

You may wish to revoke TPA Cahk (talk) Cahk (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 DoneJBW (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I figured something was up with that AliBoyWonderBoy.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello JBW : Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RV (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Electrophoresis

The anon was right to remove Category:Electromagnetism. We don't want every article with any connection to a broad topic like that to be in the top-level category. Narrow topics belong in subcategories. Electrophoresis belongs in Category:Electroanalytical methods Srleffler (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new era

Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 16:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

Happy New Year, JBW!

Happy New Year!

JBW,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 01:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 01:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

RL Issues

I am very sorry to hear about the problems created by the surgery you had back in June, as you mentioned it at Doug's page. I do hope and wish that somehow you can recover from most of it! I wish you and your family a happy new year and all the best. Also, thanks for all the administrative work you do on WP. Warm regards, warshy (¥¥) 03:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Pending Unblock Request (For Partial Block)

← Kindly take out some of your precious time to cater my request. I did both the things that you asked for around 9 days back. I don't know where we are facing problem and the reason of the delay. Because I have been blocked for 2 months now for a mistake I did. And exactly regarding which, I did not get any warning. There were suggestions or warnings for other things but not exactly regarding this. I wonder if this is a case of Wikipedia:Admin abuse by the original blocking Admin. Please solve my problem.

The reason why I feel this to be a case of Admin Abuse? 2 months ago, an admin wrote this [1] and suggested me to take a few days break from the page. And, just after 22 minutes, another admin blocked me. [2]

Maybe, they thought that I was referring to them for being partial and took it to their heart or ego. User:JBW, you have already examined the whole matter. You can understand what I am saying and why I am saying so. Please help me asap.

Thanks & Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnyKambojLive (talk • contribs) 18:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

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

Administrator changes

added
readded Stephen
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Nihiltres

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Weird moves

Hello hello. 56 to ple (a used registered 5 days ago) has moved a number Nepal-related pages to seemingly random targets, and then changed the source redirect, making revert moves complicated and messing up edit history. I notice that on various of these pages, you had intervened to revert moves of same articles on December 12, 2022, with the edit summary (like [3]) -- Soman (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems it is the same user as previously blocked, I added report for SPI now. --Soman (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I have just spent a considerable time clearing up the mess this sockpuppet made. JBW (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that, and thanks for resolving. When I first flagged I hadn't understood just how many pages were affected. --Soman (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Soman: No need for you to apologise. In fact I'm grateful to you for bringing it to my attention so that I could do something about it. However, as you can probably guess, I'm less than grateful to the troublesome editor who caused the problem.JBW (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft: Pilot Light

Hello again, and happy 2023! I had reached out to you a few weeks ago regarding the draft for Pilot Light, and I neglected to follow up (the flu hit me hard). Could I trouble you to take another look at the draft to see if it seems acceptable now? I have gone through several different revisions, taking into account the advice of a few different editors. Thank you. Tjblmc20 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tjblmc20: I'm sorry to read about the flu. I know (unfortunately) what a really bad dose of flu can be like, and I hope you're much recovered now.
The draft is certainly less promotional than it was when I first saw it. However, I see that the last reviewer declined the submission because the references don't establish noability in Wikipedia's terms, and I’m afraid I have to agree with that. You have added one reference since that review, but it is a press release, and identical to material on Pilot Light's own website, at https://pilotlightchefs.org/2021/10/11/food-thoughts/. Material from the organisation itself, whether coming directly from its website, via press releases, or in any other way, makes no contribution at all to establishing notability, because anyone can publish any statements about their own organisations. I checked the other references too, and in one way or another they don't make the mark. One of them actually says that it's a press release, others don't, but clearly report what Pilot Light says about itself, or are on websites which exist to promote causes, or on a web site which has a page saying that anyone can write for it, or in one way or another not substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of Pilot Light. I did some searching to see if I could find suitable sources, but nothing I found was really better than those you have cited. Of course there may be better sources which I could have found if I'd made slightly different searches, but experience over the years has taught me that if I can find nothing that comes reasonably near to being the kind of thing needed for Wikipedia from a few fairly simple searches, then more thorough searches won't find anything really suitable. The fact that you have clearly put quite a bit of work into the article, including finding sources to cite, but haven't found anything suitable, also makes it less likely that there's anything there. Personally, while I think that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are based on reasonable principles, I don't totally agree with every aspect of the way they are applied, and to me Pilot Light looks significant enough to be at least close to where I would put the borderline for notability, but I'm afraid that from what I've seen it doesn't seem to reach the borderline for how the notability guidelines would be likely to be applied if the page were taken to a deletion discussion. Obviously you are totally free to put more work into trying to prove me wrong, and if you can do so that will be great, but I'm afraid that my advice to you has to be that you will be very unlikely to succeed. JBW (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@JBW Thank you very much for your reply and for the thought and care that you have put into helping me out. I feared that the answer might be something like this. Regardless, I appreciate you taking the time to lay this out for me. Tjblmc20 (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JBW

Chris Troutman (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2024. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2024 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2024 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Posted at 20230101035112

DESTROY vandal back again

88.227.74.0, 151.135.134.96, 78.175.58.88, possibly others.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Sigh... How empty must someone's life be for them to need to keep doing things like this for years on end in order to get entertainment? I've put range blocks on the relevant ISP ranges covering those 3. Obviously, let me know if you see more. JBW (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible block evading user

Hello, I think केवल तेरे (talk · contribs) may actually be Anup Rajbanshi (talk · contribs) trying to evade his ban again. The pattern of their edits fit and this user along with an IP you just banned were editing my sandbox page. PenGear (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This account is  Confirmed to 56 to ple, and technically very  Likely to the master and older socks. I will block and request locks on meta. Girth Summit (blether) 15:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@PenGear and Girth Summit: I had wondered about that account, and intended to keep an eye on it. JBW (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you please unblock my alternate?

Hello, I see that you seem to have blocked a legitimate alternate account of mine, User:Mako002. A previous version of this account User:Mako002 (usurped), actually was a BADSOCK. Feel free to block User:Mako's Bot though, as that shouldn't be making any edits before a BRFA, I just wanted to reserve the username (you may want to note in the rationale that it was "at owner's request"). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mako001: I've unblocked Mako002. I'm wondering what led me to block the account, since it had made no edits at all. I suppose I must have had some reason. I will block Mako's Bot as soon as I've posted this message. JBW (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Mako002 looks like it's still globally locked for vandalism - you may want to address that on meta, I don't imagine you'll be able to log into it. Girth Summit (blether) 15:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mako001: Just pinging you to draw your attention to Girth Summit's message. JBW (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Actually, are you sure that Mako002 is globally locked? I don't see anything about it at Special:Contributions/Mako002 or at meta::Special:CentralAuth/Mako002. Are you sure you aren't thinking of User:Mako002 (usurped)? See Special:Contributions/Mako002 (usurped). (Also pinging Mako001 again...) JBW (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I run a script that greys out globally locked accounts (similar to the one that puts a line through locally blocked accounts). The link to User:Mako002 is greyed out for me - that's what initially drew my attention. Look again at meta::Special:CentralAuth/Mako002 - it says it was locked on 31 March as a VOA. Girth Summit (blether) 18:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
(If you're interested, it's User:GeneralNotability/mark-locked.js). Girth Summit (blether) 18:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: I'll have a look at the script you mentioned. Thanks for telling me about it. I do have the one that strikes through blocked users, and I find it very useful. As for Mako002, the CentralAuth page on meta that you linked to says that the account was locked on 31 March, but it does not show it as currently locked. Moreover, the account was only created on 16 April, so it can't have been locked on 31 March: that lock must have applied to the account which was originally called Mako002, but renamed as Mako002 (usurped) on 24 April. Presumably the part of the software which records when the lock was placed works on the user name, whereas the part which shows whether an account is currently locked works on the account identity. It is to be hoped that the part which determines whether to allow an editor to log in works on the account identity, as otherwise it's a very serious bug. I am pretty confident that Mako002 is not currently locked, but Mako001, would you like to try logging in to the Mako002 account, just to make sure? Just confirming that you can log in should be enough, without doing any editing, but you may like to do an edit to your talk page, to make really sure. JBW (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. Pinging GeneralNotability - do you reckon this is a bug in your script, or an oddity on meta? Girth Summit (blether) 21:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
This script doesn't mark Mako002 as glocked or blocked, maybe there might be some code that could be borrowed? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I have copied GeneralNotability's script, and it doesn't grey Mako002 out for me. I may have made some mistake, or it may be something to do with the browser I'm using, or something else that I haven't thought of, but is there any possibility that it's something else that's greying it out for you, Girth? JBW (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know. JavaScript isn't really my bag. All those links to Mako002 are still greyed out for me - both the local accounts, and the link to the CentralAuth page. I guess it could be a different script that's doing that, but I'm not aware of having two that duplicate the functionality; I might leave this and see whether GN can shed any light. Girth Summit (blether) 22:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The issue is a recent change that tries to pull the reason for the lock, but isn't especially smart about it - it's looking for locks without looking for unlocks. I'll play around with it a bit now that I have a good sample account that's been both locked and unlocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Think I've got it fixed. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
That seems to have worked, they're no longer greyed out for me. Cheers! Girth Summit (blether) 06:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

COI draft editor

You have been reviewing a draft (Jan 13th) for an author who I have reported on suspicion of being a paid editor. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Bida_thomas 10mmsocket (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Question. I think I understand WP:OUTING, it's my first time taking it into consideration, but when an editor is using what you presume to be their real name, and a google of that user's name together with the broad subject of their contributions backs up your suspicions about them, is it outing them to mention that? It seems very clear to me what this editor is, but I want to remain in good standing and not get into trouble. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@10mmsocket I googled them as well but none of that can be used here. What I found did cause some suspicion but also things that bolsters their claim they are not paid and nothing where they advertised services. However, you may have found other things and can send your findings to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. S0091 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@10mmsocket: (edit conflict) As far as Bida Thomas is concerned, you don't need to worry, because he gave considerable information about himself and his work on his user page, and although I have deleted that page as promotional, the fact that he has chosen to declare his real life identity on Wikipedia still stands, so you are free to use that information. (I seem to remember it was you who nominated the page for speedy deletion, but I may be wrong.) If you like, I'll email you a copy of the user page, so you can see for yourself.
Answering your question more generally, rather than just in relation to Bida Thomas, my personal view is that if an editor uses their real name and edits in ways which clearly link up to what a quick Google search will tell you about them, in a way which indicates that they are happy for people to know who they are, we ought to treat that as equivalent to declaring on Wikipedia who they are, so that the outing policy shouldn't apply. However, experience over the years has taught me that consensus usually favours a much narrower view of the outing policy, and so I advise keeping away from there. JBW (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to you and @S0091. Sage advice, thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Bogus report by JeanCastì

Hey, it's come to my attention that User:JeanCastì, the editor we both offered advice to last week, filed a bogus report about being harassed by me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts. Besides being reported in the wrong place, whether bogus or legit, they also continue to cast aspersions, and failed to notify me about it as is required. I wanted to reach out to an admin so as to not appear as if I was trying hide the report, regardless of it being illegitimate. Thanks. NJZombie (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Intercultural communication principles

I see you have proposed this item for deletion. Does a page for the PROD exist yet? I couldn't find it. Link? Thanks.-- Quisqualis (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: You may be confusing PROD (WP:Proposed deletion) with AfD (WP:Articles for deletion). An AfD involves creating a page for a discussion, but a PROD just consists of posting the deletion proposal on the article. There is no page for discussion, because there is no discussion: if anyone disagrees with the proposed deletion they can just remove the proposal from the article, and the deletion doesn't happen, whereas if nobody objects then the deletion does happen. In other words, PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions, where nobody objects, so there's no need for a discussion. I did wonder about taking this article to AfD when I saw the PROD had been contested, but I'm not sure that I will bother. JBW (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification JBW. I wouldn't be one to miss that article, that's for sure; WikiHow probably does a better job of it. How can I view the "contestation" of the PROD?--Quisqualis (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I now see that the template is removed, as the first edit of an IP editor from Melbourne. Their second edit was to vandalize User talk:ThadeusOfNazereth. I've been dealing with a tag-team of AU trolls this week, one of whom made a series of WP:NOTHERE edits to that article and got blocked for it. They are playing fun games on Wikipedia, in absolute bad faith. I have reverted their template removal. Is that legal on my part?--Quisqualis (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Quisqualis: In my opinion this is one of the least satisfactory bits of any of Wikipedia's policies. You can, of course, read the whole WP:Proposed deletion policy if you like, but to save you having to search through that policy, here is the relevant passage: "If anyone removes a proposed deletion tag from a page or otherwise indicates an objection, the proposed deletion is canceled. This is the case when the objection is from the article's creator or even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If an editor's intent is unclear, an objection should be assumed. Removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, may be restored." It isn't at all clear to me what the dustinction is between the tag being "removed in bad faith" and it being removed as "obvious vandalism", but in practice the effect is that virtually always you can't restore a removed PROD notice. Even in cases which look to me like obvious vandalism, I find that if a PROD is restored, almost always someone will come along and remove it on the grounds that you can't restore a removed PROD, and since that second removal was not done in bad faith, it has to stand, whatever the nature of the original removal. The short version of all that is that except in either the case of extremely obvious vandalism or an editor evading a block, restoring a removed PROD can't be done, and any further attempt at deletion has to be through AfD. JBW (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@JBW, Your analysis is much appreciated. I choose to go with "Removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, may be restored", given that this editor takes WP for social media or a joke. "Bad faith" might refer to reverting the proposal on the basis of having a dispute with the proposer. Interesting that the troll is killing the PROD, given that they have had so much fun playing with this useless article.-- Quisqualis (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


@Quisqualis: I see from your editing history that you have never created an AfD page. If you want to do so, don't even think about doing it by following the instructions at WP:AfD, as the process is clumsy, confusing, and error-prone. The only reasonable way to do it is using Twinkle. If you have enabled Twinkle on your account, then go to the article you think should be deleted, and click the "XfD" link at the top of the page. If you haven't enabled Twinkle, then enable it on the "gadgets" tab on your preferences page. JBW (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Quisqualis: I have just actually looked at WP:AfD, probably for the first time in years, and I see there is now a section headed "Creating an AfD", with a link to automate the process. That wasn't there back in the days before I discovered Twinkle, and used to struggle through the process of doing it manually. It may be that using that link is just as good as Twinkle. Obviously, I don't know.JBW (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your advice. Does the fact that a random IP has removed the PROD template mean that my re-PROD will not work? Would AN/I be of any help to me?
Just hoping to avoid being bogged down in administative processes.-- Quisqualis (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Quisqualis: The short answer to your question about whether the IP editor removing the PROD means that your re-PROD will not work is yes. I don't think that restoring the PROD can be justified in terms of the PROD policy, so if nobody else removes it before it is due to be reviewed by an administrator after a week, that administrator will pretty certainly decline it. That means that the only effect of re-PRODding is delaying the time when an AfD can be started. That being so, I will remove the PROD. I may possibly decide to come back sometime and take the article to AfD, but I don't have time to do that now. Obviously in the meanwhile you are free to take it to AfD or not. I agree with you that the removal of the PROD was probably not done in good faith, but we just have to accept that it was done, and move on from there. As for iour question about AN/I, I don't see any point at all in trying that. The editing has been far too limited in extent and trivial in nature for anything to come out of it. JBW (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I see your point here. Since the article is more of a how-to than an academic review of the "principles" (whatever they may be), I'll see what academic sources I can dig up, beyond the non-notable book which (per Talk) apparently was the original article topic, then likely AfD.-- Quisqualis (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:47, 20 January 2023 (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.

LilianaUwU () 11:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I made a mistake

Hi JBW, I herby want to acknowledge that i made a mistake by accepting the draft that seemed to have copyright problem. I missed it as it was editing from my cell phone. It am now confused about its status. Could you look into it. Thankyou signed, 511KeV (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@511KeV: I don't think you can be blamed for missing it. It isn't reasonable to expect anyone to check every page they deal with for copyright infringement, and although it did look suspicious enough to encourage me to check it, it wasn't so glaringly obvious that missing it was unreasonable. You ask me to "look into it": what exactly do you want me to look at? JBW (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the save. I wanted to make sure that this mistake is corrected. :) Thankyou once again. signed, 511KeV (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI thread about you, just so you know.

I'm not the person who brought it, but since I noticed they didn't notify you wanted you to be aware. It's here --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Sloggerbum

You've reverted a couple of my G5s. Did you read the MusicLover650 investigation case? They're a part of massive sock farm operation and public relations promotional editing scandal involving tens of socks being used with Sloggerbum being one of them. Graywalls (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls: No, I didn't read it. Is there some way I should have known about it, such as a link to it in an edit summary, or a note about it in a speedy deletion tag, or somewhere else? If so, I somehow failed to notice it. I did, however, check the block log, user page, user talk page, etc of Sloggerbum, and found no evidence that the user was evading blocks at the time of creation of the pages in question, which was the reason you gave for speedy deletion. I have also now seen the long term abuse page for this editor, and it refers to the editor as "Starting out in 2007 under the name Sloggerbum", which doesn't suggest that there's an earlier account which was blocked when Sloggerbum created the pages in question. However, if you do know of an account of the same person which was blocked at the time when those pages were created, please let me know, and I'll reconsider the matter. However, it's also important to consider whether deletion would be constructive. The reason why articles, no matter how good, can be deleted if they were created by block-evading editors is that for some persistent block-evading editors, knowing that any editing they do will be reverted or deleted, so that they achieve nothing by block-evasion, is the only disincentive to further sockpuppetry. It is highly questionable whether that effect applies to any significant extent in the case of articles created well over a decade ago. JBW (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The article in question was created in February 2011. Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/MusicLover650 The egregious use of numerous sock accounts to evade scrutiny dates back before 2011. I believe G5 was relevant, because the block wasn't isolated to something that happened after 2011, but for ongoing COI editing where the discovery was delayed. There's been no substantial contribution from other editors as I've checked authorship before G5ing them. These articles look to be promotional intended and I see WP:DUCK here and I see no harm in deleting them. If they're not removed, it would simply encourage promo editors to delay discovery such as by socking. Graywalls (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@Graywalls: None of that is remotely relevant. You nominated three articles (or at least 3 that I saw) on the grounds that they were created by an editor who was evading a block at the time when the articles were created. That is what speedy deletion criterion G5 is about. That criterion is not that a page was created by an editor who was using sockpuppets, or that the page was part of "ongoing COI editing", or that the page is promotional, or that an editor sees no harm in deleting them: it is that the page was created by an editor who was evading a block at the time when the page was created. If a page does not fit that description then it doesn't satisfy speedy deletion criterion G5, and that's that. JBW (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #68507

Rename and unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ilovejames5🚂:) 06:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Csd nomination notice

I’m not sure if you were the one who nominated Draft:NER Class 4CC for deletion, but it’s very possible that you were. Unfortunately, you didn’t give me a CSD nomination notice on my talk page. If this happens again, I will certainly have to report it-especially if you repeat this mistake. Ilovejames5🚂:) 11:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have responded to this at User talk:Ilovejames5. JBW (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Question about bad titles and redirects

Apropos of your edit comment here.

My concern is that "greatest leader" is not the meaning of the term ichidaisotsu, nor is it a specific enough epithet to limit the scope of meaning of "greatest leader" to anything that a regular English speaker would recognize as referring to anything Japanese, let alone the title of a specific office in ancient Japan.

Someone might search for "greatest leader" as an epithet for several other people or positions around the world and throughout history, and indeed Google hits for "greatest leader" suggest many different things, none of which are ichidaisotsu. The likelihood of someone searching for "greatest leader" and intending to view the content at Ichidaisotsu is vanishingly small -- probably limited to the editor who originally started the article under that title, who was also the one who moved it not even three hours after initial creation, at which point she was the only person to have worked on that page.

Additionally, nothing links to "Draft:Greatest Leader", so there is no way that someone might get to that page by clicking through from somewhere else.

  • What use is there for orphaned redirects under irrelevant and misleading titles?

Honest question. I cannot see the redirect stub as anything better than cruft, and what is worse is that it invites unnecessary confusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hæ, Eiríkr. I agree with much of what you say, and there is probably rarely much gained from the standard practice of keeping redirects from old titles of moved drafts. However, it is possible that someone who knows that there used to be a draft with that title may look for it some time, and it will be helpful to them. It is of course true that "there is no way that someone might get to that page by clicking through from somewhere else", but there are other ways they might get there: for example, they may just remember that the draft had that title, or they might have a note of it on paper, or a note in a user space page that isn't formatted as a link. On the other hand, what damage can be done by the redirect? You say 'Someone might search for "greatest leader" as an epithet for several other people or positions'. Yes, they may search for that on Google, or they may search for it on Wikipedia mainspace, but searching on Wikipedia specifically for a draft with that title? Surely not, unless they actually have a specific reason for believing there is, or was, a draft under that exact title, in which case the article in question is almost certainly the page they were looking for. It seems to me that the likelihood of the redirect being useful to anyone is fairly low, but the likelihood of it ever doing any harm is extremely close to zero, so the risk:benefit ratio is tiny, and it may as well be kept. If, however, you still think it should be deleted, bear in mind that Wikipedia policy is that draft redirects should be kept. That policy was established as an outcome of a discussion in which the substantial majority of participants favoured keeping them. If you feel that there are strong reasons for making an exception to that policy in this case, then "this redirect has a poor title" is not one of the speedy deletion criteria, and you will have to take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. JBW (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Cheers, I appreciate you taking the time to respond and lay things out. I agree that the "Draft:" namespace prefix limits the potential for confusing casual users. I'm happy to treat this as "resolved".  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Question about editing NAFFCO page

Hi Mr. JBW, I would like to ask some questions.


I would like to update NAFFCO's pages by adding some history about how the first chassis of NAFFCO was built and adding a subtopic which talks about deciphering the Vehicle Identification Numbers for each NAFFCO's vehicles. Would this be considered advertisement? Just wanted to confirm before editing the page, my only intention is to give information and not to promote anything. JLGM1998 (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


Hello JLGM1998. Here are some comments, which I hope may be helpful to you.
As far as history is concerned, it should be perfectly possible to add information without it looking like promotion or advertisement, but it depends how you write it. One of the main reasons for Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline is that very often someone closely involved with what they are writing about (such as the company they work for) finds it difficult to stand back from their own writing, and see how it will look from the perspective of an outsider. The result of that is that such people often write in a way which looks promotional to others, even if they honestly think they are writing in a neutral way. For that reason it's much safer to write what you would like to put into the article on another page, and ask for an independent editor to decide whether it is suitable to add to the article. You can write it in the article's talk page, Talk:NAFFCO, or in a separate page, such as User:JLGM1998/Sandbox. I would tend to use the talk page for suggesting just a few sentences, or the sandbox for substantial rewriting of the article, but you can do whichever you prefer. If you do that, you can then post {{request edit}} on the article talk page and write a note asking for someone to review your suggestion, and decide whether to add it to the article. You would then have to wait for someone to come along and do that. You are also very welcome to ask me for my opinion, if you like.
As for information about deciphering the Vehicle Identification Numbers, that might be a kind of detailed information which wouldn't belong in a general encyclopaedia article, though of course I can't be sure without knowing more exactly what you would be writing. JBW (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback, I will inform our director about this first before proceeding. Regarding the Vehicle Identification Numbers, do you recommend to publish it on Wikibooks? I was able to find multiple vehicle manufacturers' Vehicle Identification Numbers published in that website. JLGM1998 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@JLGM1998: I'm afraid I really don't know about Wikibooks. Almost all my work is on English Wikipedia, with a much smaller number of contributions to Wikimedia Commons, and fewer still in a few other Wikimedia projects, but I've never touched Wikibooks. JBW (talk)

Mohd Talib, the disruption is back

And it's now got an account! To jog your memory, I'm referring to 2405:201:600f:e053::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is now editing as Sameer481 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), according to the quacking that account is making. So, um, indef and G5? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mako001:  Done JBW (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Musset.

According to the droste website his last name was Musset. THis could just be copying off wikipedia though. There's also this other source for musset "Törnqvist, Egil. Ibsen: A Doll's House, pp.105, Cambridge University Press (1995) ISBN 978-0-521-47866-3" which I could not verify because the cambridge website doesn't host a digital copy of it (don't be confused by chapter 8 of something else). What source did you use for "Misset"? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: I hadn't seen either of those. They do have more of an impression of possibly reliable sources for "Musset" than anything else I have seen, but for the reasons you mention neither can be totally relied on. As for the evidence I have seen, my first checks with Google gave me thousands of hits for a searches for terms including "Misset" and only a few hundred for "Musset", which obviously doesn't prove anything, for several reasons, including the fact that either could come from the Wikipedia article at different times in its history, but it is a big enough discrepancy to at least raise serious doubts about "Musset". Obviously, it was necessary to avoid hits for other people named "Jan Musset"/"Jan Misset", such as an eighteenth century sailor, so I included other elements into search terms, such as "Droste", "artist", "1861", "1931" (his dates of birth and death) etc etc. Most of what I found, for both Musset and Misset, was, frustratingly, obviously not reliable sourcing, such as wikis, YouTube, pages where at least part of the text was word for word the same as in the Wikipedia article. However, I did find some sources for "Misset" which seemed to me to be more likely to be reliable, and none at all for "Musset". Unfortunately I didn't keep a record of everything I found, but I can give you a couple of examples.
  • The website of RKD – Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis (Netherlands Institute for Art History) also has some information about him, at https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/artists/89159 where his name is given as "Misset".
Those websites, and a few more which as I said I didn't keep records of, give me much more of an impression of reliability than anything I found for "Musset". JBW (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

/64 block

I just went to block 2600:1702:16c1:c60::/64, which there has been nothing but nasty vandalism and nasty BLP vios out of, but found you had already blocked them for a year. Endorsed! (Always aggravating to be pipped at the post, though. Bishzilla don't like it.) Bishonen | tålk 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC).

Well, you know what Bishzilla can do then, don't you, Bishönen? JBW (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

“College Board”

Could you please remove the restriction on the “College Board” page. Despite past vandalism, it needs updating. Kentc321 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The article has been subject to extensive vandalism for years. The current protection has been in force for a matter of months. Limited periods of protection in the past have failed to put a stop to the problem, which has returned after each period of protection has ended. Requiring an account to reach autoconfirmed status to edit is a very low level of restriction, and does not place major or long-term obstacles in the way of an editor with an account which is not yet autoconfirmed. Anyone who has updates to make which are too urgent to wait until they have an autoconfirmed account can request an edit. Protecting an article always stands to cause inconvenience for some editors with useful edits to make, and it is therefore something which one is never happy to do, but, all things considered, in this case the benefits of protection are likely to outweigh the disadvantages. JBW (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, new to Wikipedia. I’ll look into autoconfirm or make a request. Kentc321 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your good work. Andre🚐 03:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

United Planet

Hey admin JBW,

I have worked on the draft again and tried to make it more neutral. Can you please check my submission again? Thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_Planet Mhijazi (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Origin and Meaning of Ukriverse: A Mocking Term for Screenwriter Udayakrishna

The term " Ukriverse" was coined to mock the screenwriter Udayakrishna for his consecutive box office failures due to repeatedly producing similar genre movies. That's why I said it is a hoax. Akevsharma (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Akevsharma: A hoax is something which is actually fictitious, but presented as factual with the intention of deceiving. A factually true account of something is not a hoax, whether or not the thing described in that account is intended to mock somebody. JBW (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate administrative action

I noticed you protected the page New Albany, Mississippi for persistent vandalism on February 13 for persistent vandalism. However, the page has not been edited by any non-autoconfirmed user for a week, so who are you protecting it from? The edit you undid was of information that has been in the article for three years as of tomorrow (with a recent revert on notability concerns and a quick restoration as there are literally thousands of sources, and some were supplied). You stated when you removed this information that it was disproportionate to include: however, it is arguably the most notable event in the history of New Albany, going by the number of articles on Newspapers.com and elsewhere, and the many other references. The event involved crowds of thousands of people, a US senator, and an extra-judicial killing of a person who could easily have been guilty or innocent. Why is it "disproportionate" to include such an event? Why is it not censorship to remove it? What reason do you have for protecting the page? It appears you are accusing me of vandalism (and of being a non auto-confirmed user) for placing reliably sourced notable content that you for some reason don't like. As an administrator, I shouldn't have to tell you about WP:BRD, but this material has been in the article since February 15, 2020. As an administrator, you're highly capable of retaliating against me for disagreeing with you, but your actions here seem very out of place. I can understand you having a content dispute, and would happily discuss it with you, but reverting and then taking a wholly-unnecessary administrative action looks like muscle-flexing to show that your opinion carries more weight. Please take a look at the information in the article, take a look at the sourcing, realize that this was a local event that had a large national impact, and consider it as an editor, rather than playing a power game. — Jacona (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jacona: Hello, and thank you for telling me about your concerns. You have raised two separate issues, the block and my removal of text from the article.
  1. The block. I became aware of the problem from a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about editing from an IP address. When I investigated, I found that the listed IP address was not the whole story. The same editor had used several IP addresses in the same range, and another IP address in another range, but based in the same geographical place. There had also been vandalism from a couple of accounts during the period when the disruptive IP editing was in progress, and it looked very much as though it was likely to be connected to the IP editing, especially in view of the fact that the I addresses and accounts had all been active where there had been very little vandalism over recent months beforehand. The problem had been going on for about a month, and had not been stopped by a block for a fairly short time. The largest number of edits had been to the article New Albany, Mississippi, but there had been edits to other articles too, one of which had been the immediate cause of the vandalism report. I blocked the IP range and the single other IP address. However, experience over the years indicates that in a case like this, where vandalism has shifted among different IP addresses and accounts, blocking particular IP addresses is often futile, as the editing just continues via other IP addresses and/or accounts, so I considered the possibility of protecting the affected pages. On pages other than New Albany, Mississippi, there was not enough vandalism to justify protection, but there did seem to be a case for protecting that article. You are quite correct in saying that there had been no non-autoconfirmed editing on that article for a week, but after a few days' break the vandal had returned elsewhere, and it seemed likely that they would be back at that article too. There had been no other non-autoconfirmed editing of any kind on that article for seven weeks, and a grand total of three non-vandalism non-autoconfirmed edits since 2021, so I judged that the risk of collateral damage from blocking was tiny, and vastly outweighed by the chance of benefit. There is a very wide range of opinions concerning how freely IP blocks should be used. (Taking just school blocks, for example, a very experienced editor once told that he thought we should block all school IP addresses and "throw away the key", whereas I can remember another experienced editor saying that we should never block any school IP addresses. I regard both those views as too extreme in their respective directions.) I will therefore not be at all surprised if you tell me that you don't agree with my judgement in this case, but you asked about my motivation for the block, and I have tried to give you a full account of it.
  2. The difference of opinion concerning article content. I will answer what appear to me to be the main points of what you said there, but before I do, I suggest that you may find it helpful to re-read what you wrote, and consider whether the way you expressed yourself was the best possible. In fact, my first impulse was to just tell you that I would answer if and when you rewrote your question as a civil request for my opinion, rather than an impassioned rant with ridiculous personal attacks, such as suggesting without providing any evidence that I might "retaliat[e] against [you] for disagreeing with [me]" and accusing me of "muscle-flexing to show that [my] opinion carries more weight". On thinking it over, I decided that it would be more constructive to answer your main points, regardless of your mode of expressing yourself, but you may like to consider whether you could have expressed yourself differently. Moving on from there to what you said about the article content about which we disagreed, I think the first point to make clear is that I never suggested, nor do I think, that the incident was not notable, I merely thought that its inclusion in that article was disproportionate. There is a whole article about the incident at Lynching of L. Q. Ivy, and I thought that was enough. Prompted by your message, I have looked back and thought again. Certainly it makes sense for there to be some mention of the incident in the article New Albany, Mississippi, preferably with a clear link to the article about the lynching, and I think removing it entirely was a mistake. In the existing version there was a link, but it took the form [[Lynching of L. Q. Ivy|L. Q. Ivy]], which is unhelpful, because oviously what a reader sees is L. Q. Ivy, which suggests an article about the person, not specifically about the lynching. I suggest a section heading, followed by {{main|Lynching of L. Q. Ivy}}, and then a brief summary of the incident, maybe one sentence or two. Readers could then easily follow the link to the main article if they should wish to. However, I don't feel particularly strongly about the matter, and if you wish to do something else, such as restoring the content in its original form, feel free to go ahead. I shan't "flex my muscles", "retaliat[e] against [you] for disagreeing with [me]", or, in fact, do anything else about it at all. Writing this fairly long message has already, in my opinion, been disproportionate to a trivial disagreement about article content, which could easily have been settled by a friendly conversation along the lines of "I see you said ..... but I think ..... Do you think maybe ..... ?" - "Yes, I see what you mean. How about ..... ?" JBW (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
    You're absolutely right. I was up past my bedtime and reacted to events on and off Wikipedia. It was about the fourth time in a short time when I saw Black history being erased, and in the dimness of the night it appeared not to be a good-faith edit, but to be part of a greater reaction to excise Black history during Black history month. I apologize for my reaction, and will restore the information to the article, with regard for your comments above. — Jacona (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    I have updated the article. While our minds are on New Albany, I noticed that the disputed information is the only cited information in the history section, and that somehow the history section just sounds very WP:PROMO, like it was cut-and-pasted from somewhere. A quick search found [4], which is not exactly the wording of the section, but so close in structure and in detail that I question whether this is a WP:COPYVIO. What do you think? — Jacona (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    After reviewing the situation a little more, perhaps you can empathize with my rant, while it was definitely counterproductive. During Black History Month, well-sourced and thoroughly notable information about a Black subject that had been in the article for three years was removed by User:Magnolia677 as "a non-notable murder." I've had many positive encounters with this user, and they are a good editor...but this information was referenced, and as content within an article needs to be cited rather than pass a notability guideline for inclusion. It was the only cited info in the history section, yet the uncited material remained. That set me a bit on edge. I did some work to firmly establish the subject was not only relevant and referenced, but unquestionably passed the WP:GNG.
    Then shortly thereafter, also within Black History Month, you again removed this information with the edit caption "Including this single incident out of the whole history of the place is totally disproportionate." Meanwhile, there is not a single reference cited within all of the remaining "White history" information in the history section. In the (for me) late-night hours, it struck me as terribly wrong that all of the other information, completely unreferenced and likely plagiarized, was acceptable for inclusion, and the one referenced paragraph, the only one that addressed Black History, was unfit for inclusion within the encyclopedia. Again, I apologize for going off the rails, but I have seen numerous instances of well-documented Black history being rejected while dubiously sourced White history is retained repeatedly this month. I have grown to believe it's a (mostly unconscious) backlash to hearing more about Black History during February. I see it not as a reflection on any individuals but of our society as a whole. Perhaps you see it the same, perhaps not, but hopefully you can have some empathy for why I overreacted in the manner that I did. Have a great day! — Jacona (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jacona: Yes, I do understand what you are saying, and which one of us has never over-reacted? I also admit, as I said above, that my removing the material completely was a mistake, and I don't think my message above was ideal either. So maybe we can both agree that neither of us handled things perfectly,😒 and move on from there.🏃
    OK, moving on from there, I've looked at your recent edits to the article, and I do think they are improvements. Thanks. JBW (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks very much for your assistance. — Jacona (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Britain's Got Talent (series 16)

Hey JBW, just came across this new article while patrolling the page feed. I do recall your blocking of Powerful Blue, and the subsequent deletion of this article. The current creator, Fanmade1023, seems to share quite a few interests with the former editor I stated. As you didn't leave info regarding any prior editors, I think I'd contact you before filing an SPI. Would you think these could be related? Thanks. Silikonz💬 03:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Silikonz: How stupid of me not to make a note of what block I thought Powerful Blue was avoiding. I have just spent a considerable amount of time searching through editing histories to try to find out, which obviously I needn't have done if I'd had the sense to write down what it was at the time. However, it now looks to me as though it was a block on 207.237.46.109. Powerful Blue's first edit was a few minutes after the IP address was blocked, on the page that the IP address had last edited before the block, and there continued to be considerable overlap in editing. There's also a considerable editing overlap with Fanmade1023, as can be seen from https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Fanmade1023&users=Powerful+Blue&users=207.237.46.109&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki However, I still can't be at all confident that Fanmade1023 is the same person. The editing is similar, but I'm not sure that there's more than can be explained by two fans with similar interests. There's also the fact that the Fanmade1023 account had been around for some time, so there's no obvious reason why Powerful Blue should start editing just after the IP block, if the editor already had an account that was in use. The new version of the article you mention isn't similar enough to the old one to prove a connection, but of course that doesn't prove it isn't the same person doing it differently second time round. There's also the fact that this is the first time Fanmade1023 has created an article, whereas Powerful Blue created loads of articles or drafts, so that's a significant behavioural difference. All things considered, my feeling is that there's enough similarity in editing histories to make one wonder, but not enough for any more than that. You could start an SPI and ask for a CheckUser, but unless you can find more definite evidence than I have come up with, I think the request for CU would almost certainly be declined. JBW (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
@Silikonz: A correction to the above. I said "Powerful Blue's first edit was a few minutes after the IP address was blocked, on the page that the IP address had last edited before the block", but while that was true of the first article edit, some hours earlier there had been a few edits to a user page, and creation of a draft which is now deleted. JBW (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'll wait and observe. Silikonz💬 16:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear JBW: talk

Before reviewing anything for granted, for sake of it you’re obliged to mention the errors wherein editor has committed while reviewing the page if any, so that an action guiding approach could be adopted from your comment/review. Instead of just preaching the traditional set-up wherein even as per as Wikipedia intent being tagged as “purposeful advertisement” with use of originally written words in promotional English Language. Hope it would help you review & improvise your suggestions and provide healthy lines for editors on Wikipedia to go with. 2405:201:4029:D017:21C5:828A:CE58:445F (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't understand what you are trying to say. JBW (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #68139

Quo vadis? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Deep. Thank you for prompting me. I don't remember whether I have told you before, but going away and leaving something I meant to do indefinitely is one of the symptoms of attention deficit disorder, with which I am cursed. JBW (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Looking back, I've had this since 5th grade, so, I know whereof you speak. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack?!?!

How on earth is this a personal attack? Maybe you should read this section one more time: WP:WIAPA. Mwiqdoh (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: Perhaps calling someone a goat has some specific colloquial meaning where you come from, that I don't know about, but to me, and I would guess to the substantial majority of English speaking people, it gives the impression of being an attack. JBW (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Goat stands for Greatest Of All Time. This guy has Emer"GOAT" in his name and edited the Emerson Royal article saying he is the greatest of all time in his position, so he obviously would know what I mean. Mwiqdoh (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
@Mwiqdoh: OK, thanks for explaining that. However, it may be worth considering whether it would be better to stick to using English which is sufficiently standard as to be comprehensible to most readers, rather than relying on particular knowledge by particular editors, since there is no such thing as a private and personal message on Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft : The Piano Brothers

Hi JWB, You deleted the article "Draft : The Piano Brothers" as it was for tagged for speedy deletion due to copyright infringement claims. Is there anyway to reinstate the draft? I would like to revise the contents of the page and resubmit to AFC as I believe there is sufficient references in the article. Is there anyway I can do this? Or will I have to create a new draft? MusicMadeSimple (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@MusicMadeSimple: I can't restore copyright-infringing material to Wikipedia, but I can email it to you if you like. If you want me to do that, first enable email on your account. To do that, click on the "preferences" link at the top of the page, then click on "Email options", and follow the instructions. When you have done that, let me know and I will email the source text of the draft to you. JBW (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi JWB,
Thank you very much, I have enabled my email in the preferences. Do you have any advice on how to avoid the same copyright claims the next time? I did try to word it in my own words and did not copy paste. MusicMadeSimple (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@MusicMadeSimple: Incidentally, you refer to copyright infringement "claims", but I think it is more than just claims. The copyright terms spelt out clearly at http://www.warnersgroup.co.uk/about-warners-group/terms-conditions/ unambiguously do not allow republication of text from that site on another web site, let alone doing so under free licensing terms such as cover Wikipedia content. JBW (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I see, does that mean I will not be able to use the site as a reference or source of Information? MusicMadeSimple (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@MusicMadeSimple: OK, I will email it to you. Here are a few comments in response to the questions you have asked; I hope they may be helpful to you.
  1. You absolutely can use the site as a reference, and copyright is not an issue at all. You can also use it as a source of information, but you need to rewrite that information in your own words.
  2. Don't copy wording directly from a source. For example, you copied the following word for word: "The Piano Brothers have quickly become recognised as one of today’s most adventurous, cutting-edge piano duos, performing their own original compositions as well as arrangements of such diverse musical styles as Bernstein and Coldplay." There are no ifs and buts about that: you were copying someone else's words, and you must have known that you were.
  3. Don't do what many inexperienced editors do, which is take text from a source, and basically copy it but make slight changes to the wording, or rearrange the order of the text, thinking that will avoid copyright problems. I don't remember specific examples of that in your editing, and I don't propose to spend time now checking back for it, but the kind of thing that is often done is take something like "John Doe frequently used to write letters to his grandmother in which he explained to her how to suck eggs" and make it into "John Doe often wrote letters to his grandmother explaining to her how to suck eggs". As a rough guide, if anyone looking at the two versions side by side will be able to see that the one is derived from the other, then don't do it. It is actually very difficult to avoid making the copying obvious if you take the approach of working from an existing text and changing it. You need to take the approach of finding information, preferably from more than one source, and then starting out writing about that information on your own. JBW (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    Hi JWB
    I have received the source text in my email. Thank you very much for your time and input. I will make sure to do more research on the topic, gather more references, and rewrite my sentences better. I appreciate your time and feedback. MusicMadeSimple (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Your full protection of Hari Raj Limbu

I don't think it's appropriate for that article to be protected from editing, since the disruption was solely related to page moves. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Partofthemachine: You are, of course, absolutely right. Thank you for pointing out my mistake, which I have now corrected. JBW (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #69915

What do you think? Have they adequately addressed the reasons for their block? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfried: Short version: As far as I am concerned, it is well over two years since the disruptive editing which led to the block, the editor has said that they won't do the same things again, in a way which looks sincere, and that's enough for me to give them another chance.
Additional TLDR content, which you may ignore if you like: As you probably know from seeing my comments relating to unblock requests over the years, I am much more willing to unblock in this kind of situation than most administrators, for several reasons, including the fact that young people can change dramatically over that time scale. If Wikipedia had existed when I was 14, I would almost certainly have vandalised it, because that's the kind of adolescent I was, but at 16 I would equally certainly have been willing to contribute constructively, because that's the kind of person I was developing into as I progressed through adolescence. (I could go on to give you the even more TLDR version, listing more reasons, but that's enough to go on with.) I can never understand why so many administrators are so unwilling to give ROPE to blocked editors after such a long time. ∴ I favour unblocking. JBW (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

User talk:MIBsausageCasing

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cahk:  Done Thanks for letting me know. JBW (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 5.194.136.168 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi JBW, stopping by to say thank you for all you do around this place. Your work is meaningful and appreciated. S0091 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Hello JBW. Thank you for the recent CSD. I am sorry to see that a suspicious IP account is making ridiculous claims about you at ANI, hopefully it doesn't cause any troubles for you.

Are you able to tell me which accounts are the main editors on Belgin Aksoy please?

Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Snoozy. Sorry I didn't answer this before, but at the time when I first saw it, my attention was taken up by the ANI report, and I managed to forget your request. Anyway, I have now checked the editing history of the article, and I can answer you. The only account to do any significant editing of the article was its creator, Dominioncatty, which is now blocked as a sockpuppet. In fact other than that, the only editing was the following: Oronsay added a "short description" and a DEFAULTSORT tag; Onel5969 made a few really trivial corrections, such as changing "Between 1996 to 1998" to "Between 1996 and 1998"; Ser Amantio di Nicolao made a couple of changes to categories; and then, of course, you posted a speedy deletion nomination. JBW (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much. It is good to see that Dominioncatty's only other article is already being dealt with.
That was a very inopportune time for your computer to die! I hope it is back up and running smoothly now. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Query

Hello, JBW,

I came across Raja9696 who I think might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet (or friend) of recently blocked editor Kalapala0 (check out their deleted contributions). I know that you're not a checkuser but I thought I'd give you a head's up...might be a new editor to watch.

I hope you have a good week! Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: My guess is a straightforward sockpuppet, as the first edit was removing a speedy deletion tag from a page created by Kalapala0. However, I agree it's "a new editor to watch", rather than to do anything about now. JBW (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
  • Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
  • The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Liz: recently created?

@Liz: "Recently created" ??? [5] 🤔 JBW (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


( I tried to post this on your talk page, but I couldn't, because at the moment I don't have access to a computer, and my phone can't cope with such enormously long pages. You may like to consider doing some extensive archiving, because there may be editors with more important messages that they can't post.) JBW (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Seems you caught the current master of an entire drawer of socks (190.208.45.244).   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Selem 3laykum

Hello, I recently (over the past year) made a few contributions to adding two unrecognized island nations to Wikipedia. I noticed that recently, you've taken them down as inappropriate. I was still working on the recent one but the older one seemed fine. I used links to official .com website (Bahariterra.com)

They've been flagged as hoaxes?! They aren't recognized by NATO or anyone but these are still places with many people. I'm actually Bahariterran myself.

Please inform me of any way I can get the articles up? If they can't go on Wikipedia (the best webpage I know of) I don't know where they'd go. Nothing is quite like this site.

I have much appreciation for you as you're a long time contributer who works hard. Kazqoq (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kazqoq: Can you show me a reliable source confirming what you wrote about Bahariterra? Not a blog or a wiki or somebody's personal self-made web site, but a reliable published source? If you can, then the subject may perhaps be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I suspect, however, that "If they can't go on Wikipedia (the best webpage I know of) I don't know where they'd go" means that you are trying o get publicity for something which has not yet received significant coverage in reliable published sources; if so then the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Other aspects of the coverage of this topic on the internet, such as, for example, claims of endemic species of plants which are not listed in authoritative botanical sources, contribute to the impression that this is just a fantasy "country", but you are very welcome to prove that it isn't, if you like. JBW (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
please do not jump to conclusions, bruv. Don't worry, some sites are Bahariterra.com and the official government webpage. Also, you can find information about my country all over the web. Kazqoq (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Share the love and none

Please revoke their talk page editing as they are attacking users there. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 DoneJBW (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 Thanks - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Carol-Ann Amplifiers

Hi - You recently decline the submission of my article about a Carol-Ann Amplifiers. I followed similar context and structure as other articles about boutique amplifiers in wikipedia such as

Bogner Amplification

Fryette Amplification

Dumble Amplifiers

You stated that the rejection was due to the following :in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary, independent of the subject.

I fail to see how the Carol-Ann article differs in the criteria from the similar articles I mentioned above. The article is about a now defunct yet still relevant manufacturer of Guitar amplifiers. The article goes deeper that most other articles available in wikipedia about similar subject, sources are reliable from either from content from the manufacturer's web site , online magazines specialized in the subject or government web sites

Please clarify the specifics of you rejection so I can corrected rather than blindly trying to address it Renzo Zagni Vestrini 22:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzagni (talk • contribs)

@Rzagni: As far as Bogner Amplification and Fryette Amplification are concerned, it looks as though you may be right: they are almost unsourced. I don't have time now to check all 38 references in the article Dumble Amplifiers, but a quick check of a random sample of 5 of them suggests that the sourcing there is no better than in the draft you refer to. It may possibly be a case of bombarding an article with large numbers of poor quality references instead of a few good ones. Those articles might well be deleted if they were taken to a deletion discussion. JBW (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I've review other articles about boutique amp manufactures. My article and other articles are similar in context, content, voice and references. That said given the my article was rejected and others not lead me to believe the approval standards are unpredictable and inconsistently applied. The fact that you did not have time to check other articles
Unless you can provide specifics for your decisions as I've asked twice already I ask you to restore the article and publish it Zagni (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response. Could you advice on what changes to made in the Carol-Ann Amplifiers to be allowed to be published ? Please note the Carol-Ann Amplifiers company is now defunct. There is a group of enthusiast ---myself included--- that supports other users in the Carol-Ann amp community . I don't have any financial interest here Renzo Zagni Vestrini 23:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzagni (talk • contribs)
@Melangio:(Previously named Rzagni) Thank you for expressing your concerns. Here are a few comments, which I hope may be helpful to you.
  1. On the subject of the draft which you created being no worse than other articles, you may find it instructive to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. It is natural for new editors to assume that existing articles are an indication of what is acceptable, but unfortunately it isn't always so.
  2. You refer to "The fact that [I] did not have time to check other articles". I did in fact check the other articles which you mentioned. One of them has a huge number of references, and rather than spend an inordinate amount of time reading them all, I checked a sample of them. What I saw was enough to suggest that you were probably right in thinking that the sourcing of that article was no better than the sourcing of the draft which you expressed concerns about. That was all that I was seeking to establish. It is conceivable that spending more time into checking more of the references might have proved that you were wrong, but I don't see that doing so would be a particularly useful use of my time.
  3. You ask me to "to restore the article and publish it". Presumably you mean to reverse my decision to decline your "articles for creation" submission. At present the draft does not establish that its subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and therefore is not ready to become an article. You are, however, perfectly free to work on the draft to make it more suitable. I suggest that you read the general notability guideline and the guide to reliable sources, if you haven't already done so, to see what kind of thing is required.
  4. Although you created your account almost nine years ago, you had made only three very small edits before you set out to start creating articles. Crating new articles which satisfy Wikipedia's standards is probably the single aspect of contributing to Wikipedia which requires most understanding and experience of how Wikipedia works. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. JBW (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

ISO/IEC 29110

Hi:


I checked you removed this article because the assumed copyright violation. The problem here is, as far as I know, the main author of the article is the same author of the referred violated links, which is also the editor of the ISO spec. I wonder if could be possible to get it back. Thanks :) —Ismael Olea (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ismael:
You must be referring to Claude Y. Laporte, who was the first listed author of one of the sources which I cited in the deletion log, and also the overall project editor of the ISO/IEC 29110 series of standards and guides. A number of edits to the article were made by an edior using the accounts "Cylaporte" and "Claude Laporte". Content from that source is in fact only part of the problem; I shall try to outline the principal concerns, both for that source and for others.
I listed two sources in the deletion log. For one of thoose I haven't been able to find any statement as to who its author(s) might be, but the page bears the copyright notice "©2023CETIC - Your Connection to ICT Research". There are other sources from which greater or lesser amounts of material have been incorporated into the Wikipedia article from time to time, which I did not include in the deletion log, including some included in the very first version of the article, created in 2011. Amongst other sources of copied or closely paraphrased material are https://www.iso.org/standard/51151.html, https://www.iso.org/standard/51154.html, and https://www.iso.org/standard/62711.html. Those pages bear a copyright notice saying "© All Rights Reserved".
Even if we assume that the material from Claude Laporte is properly licensed for republication in Wikipedia, restoring the article would not be acceptable, because of the other copyright-infringing material. However, can we even assume that the material from Claude Laporte is suitably licensed? The article "Applying Software Engineering Standards in Very Small Entities: From Startups to Grownups" was published in IEEE Software ( Volume: 35, Issue: 1, January/February 2018). The version of this paper which was found by the copyvio detection tool, and which I referred to in the deletion log, is a prebublication version, which does not contain any statement about copyright. However, seeking the published version of the article on the IEEE web site, I find that it is not publicly available without accessing it via an account, and the web site bears a copyright notice which says "All rights reserved". It is possible that the individual article is exempt from that, and has been licensed for free reuse in terms consistent with Wikipedia's reuse terms, but I see no evidence that it is so, and Wikipedia's copyright policy requires that we presume that it isn't. Even if we assume that the editor who posted material from the article was one of the authors of the source, and that he intended that by posting text from it to Wikipedia he was licensing it for free reuse by anyone for any purpose, we can't assume that he had the authority to do so. It is not clear to me that the copyright isn't owned by the IEEE, or if it is author-owned that it isn't jointly owned by all the authors. Also, the copyright situation was explained to that editor, who was informed of how he could release the material for reuse in accordance with Wikipedia's licensing terms, but he did not do so. If he does own the copyright, and if he did intend to license the material for free reuse, then he was able to confirm that it was so, bt for some reason chose not to.
When I saw the copyright infringement notice on the article, I looked through its history, in the hope of finding an earlier version without problems, so that we could restore that. However, I found that, as I said in the deletion log, and have mentioned above, there has been copyright infringing text ever since the first version, and since then further problematic material has been added in numerous edits, buried in amongst the editing history of the article. An attempt was made at one time to remove and revision-delete the problematic material, but it failed to catch all of it, and further editing since then has further complicated the history. There appear, in fact, to be no versions without problematic content, so that removing all of it would require revision deletion of the entire history of the article, which would mean creating a new, copyright-infringement-free version, for which no editing history would be visible; it would make much more sense to just write a new version of the article. Since it seems to me that the subject is pretty certainly notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, creating a new version is no doubt desirable, and it is very unfortunate that this copyright problem has made it necessary to do so. JBW (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The International Association of Professional Wedding Officiants

Hi JBW,

I recently created the a page for the IAPWO, The International Association of Professional Wedding Officiants, which was deleted. I've recreated the page as a draft and added a COI. Are you able to assist in editing before I submit it for review? I believe this page to be important as it's a legitimate professional organization which I'm a part of and wedding officiants and prospective wedding officiants should know about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_International_Association_of_Professional_Wedding_Officiants.Yong Maddox (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection of list of Universal Pictures films (2020–2029)

9 years ago, you protected this page before it split into a bunch of decades, which I think means you're the appropriate admin to consult about this. Anyway, this page has received a lot of valid edit requests (see talk page) over the years, so I think it's worth unprotecting. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@Snowmanonahoe: (edit conflict)
  1. Wow! It's pretty rare to get a message about something I did 9 years ago. (Though not unprecedented. A while ago I was thanked for an edit from more than a decade ago.)
  2. It took me a little while to find the protection you meant, because I had never protected list of Universal Pictures films (2020–2029), but eventually I managed to figure out that I protected Lists of Universal Pictures films, which later got moved to list of Universal Pictures films (2020–2029), taking the protection with it.
  3. OK, I've unprotected the article. Let's hope the problem doesn't come back. JBW (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliawalsh22

The alleged sock started editing here the day before you unblocked the alleged master. The alleged sock is blocked as a sock or the alleged master on Commons.

I find this depressing since the editor could be a mine of useful articles. I find it disturbing. c:Category:Sockpuppets of Aliawalsh22 shows that the editor is not new to sockpuppetry.

Your unblock was charitable, and you could not have known about the new puppet. No good deed goes unpunished, it seems. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk page protections

Talk:Puppy

You protected this page in June 2016 after an attack by a persistent vandal that same month. Do you believe continued protection of the talk page is warranted? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Australian flag debate

You protected this one in July 2013, also due to persistent vandalism. Is it still necessary? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither of these was just because of recent vandalism; in both cases there had been vandalism continuing over a period of years. In the case of the Australian flag, the page had been repeatedly protected, with vandalism returning each time protection finished. That being so, I have no confidence that the problem won't come back. However, I really dislike protecting talk pages, especially for long periods, so I have lifted the protection. Thanks for drawing this to my attention, and let's hope the problem doesn't return. JBW (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Microsoft Edge version history

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Microsoft Edge version history. 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. Purplneon486 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The April Fools' Day 2023 topicons

I am not sure if WP:G5 exactly applies. Sure the creator was engaging in block evasion, but I believe there are also significant contributors by others. I remember making a few modifications to both of these icons. Anyway, since this is April Fools' Day I could care less about the balloon and wombat topicons.

I also suggest running Special:Nuke on the creator of those topicons to see if they created anything else. These icons were used by a few, and to have the icons back for historical purposes of April Fools' Day 2023 would be good. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Reintroduction of bad edits and information into articles when reverting sockpuppets

JBW, I saw you tried to remove a notification on my talk page by a sockpuppet of an RfD they started on something I made. How is it helpful to remove the notification to me of said RfD when it's still ongoing regardless of the sockpuppet having been banned? Furthermore, I notice in your frequent blanket reversions of sockpuppet edits that you've been reintroducing bad information and just general bad edits overall into articles. WP:BRV says that sockpuppet edits may be reverted, not that they have to be, and especially not if the reversion is reintroducing bad material into Wikipedia. I think your blanket reversions, such as on my talk page, are causing more harm than good. SilverserenC 23:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverting a user talk page comment on the sockpuppet's own talk page 6 months after they made it? Are you just running a tool that is actually blanket reverting any edit they ever made? Because that would explain the many bad reversions you're making. SilverserenC 23:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
You re-added promotional material to an article. SilverserenC 23:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
You turned a regular link to the disambiguation page at NWA into a redirect link to said page. SilverserenC 23:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, this is one of the worse cases, you reintroduced vandalism into an article. SilverserenC 23:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
You reintroduced more vandalism. I do hope you get back online soon. This is really, really bad. SilverserenC 23:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
More vandalism SilverserenC 23:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
BLP violating vandalism SilverserenC 23:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If I saw a new editor making all of these edits I'd drop a 4im instantly. These edits are basically automated, since there's clearly not any human checking if they're good first. Congratulations, JBW, you've basically managed to create automated vandalism. I have serious issues with someone who's been an admin for over a decade accidentally using massRollback or similar to create automated vandalism. Can you be... a lot more careful? And read Wikipedia:ROLLBACKUSE one more time? casualdejekyll 00:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I presume they are being done with User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRollback. I think for the record it should be clear that as a human, one is expected to review their own edits made with any tool. This applies to me as well, who has always checked and double checked to ensure that there are no problems with these edits.
@JBW please take a look at what you have done and consider whether they actually were conducive to the project. Per WP:BRV just because edits can be reverted doesn't mean they should. And care should be taken to ensure that any edits reinstated do not violate core policies or are vandalism. There is absolutely no way that any automated tool that does not let you review your work does not violate Wikipedia:Bot policy. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, all three of you, for bringing my attention to these problems, which are, obviously, matters for serious concern, and of course I shall carefully consider the matters you have raised, and reconsider how to proceed in future in similar situations, and how to weigh the balance between the risk of leaving numerous unsuitable editing in place and the risk of reverting good edits as collateral damage. You may, however, find it worthwhile re-reading your comments, and reconsidering whether the tone and manner in which you expressed yourselves was the one most likely to encourage me to consider yiur suggestions positively. JBW (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked editor and my talk page

So I noticed that someone whose partially blocked from two articles by you due to long-term abuse left this message on my talk page.[6] At first I thought maybe it was an obscure reference to this but I didn't write the content there and no-one deleted so I was just left confused. I figured I'd ask if you have any idea? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: No, I really don't know. The only edit of yours I have found which is at all connected is this, but you weren't removing anything. The only possible explanation I can think of is that the IP editor may perhaps have been referring to someone else's edit on that article, and accidentally picked up your username from the wrong item in the article's editing history, but I haven't searched to see whether there's an edit there that they might be referring to. JBW (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for trying regardless. I figured I'd ask on the off chance you knew if the range had a previous history of leaving confusing messages on people's talk pages. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail (again)

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Does June Parker ring a bell? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Someone who's wrong on the internet: Haha! Yes, it very much does. That was the one. I had forgotten, but I have now refreshed my memory, and you are right. JBW (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bielefeld (2nd nomination)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bielefeld (2nd nomination). 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. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 13:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know why, since you evidently know how to post to a user talk page, and could have just asked me to restore the page, which I have now done. JBW (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I want you to consider also restoring Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2023/The Keepy Uppy Balloon bottom right corner as it has had significant edits from others and thus does not violate WP:G5. It is also important for documentation of April Fools' Day pranks. I could care less about Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2023/The Keepy Uppy Balloon top icon and Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2023/The Sacred Wombat top icon, since I do not think anyone has made significant edits to those, but it would be a kind of nice thing to restore. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Can we please put this nonsense to bed and not argue over April Fools jokes 2 weeks after April Fools is over? * Pppery * it has begun... 00:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
@Pppery I could care less as well because it's April Fool's Day and I do not want to waste the time of Deletion Review to have these pages restored. They were deleted according to G5, the criteria for speedy deletion that it was a page that was created in violation of a ban or block. However, they were heavily used before they were deleted under G5.
Please also see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2023/The Keepy Uppy Balloon bottom right corner and Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2023/The Keepy Uppy Balloon top icon and Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2023/The Sacred Wombat top icon. The fact that good faith contributors have used these templates indicate that they are important in Wikipedia's culture. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Awesome Aasim:
  1. Yes, obviously you could care less about these, because if you didn't care about them at all you wouldn't mention them. However, I can't imagine why anyone would care so much about keeping this kind of childish nonsense that they would put time into trying to get them restored.
  2. Your idea of "significant edits" is radically different from mine. All of the edits made by editors other than the creator of the page were completely trivial.
  3. The idea that doing something "in good faith" somehow makes it acceptable is one which mostly comes up in unblock requests, and it is nonsense. Many people do many things in good faith that are totally unconstructive.
  4. Almost all of the transclusions you mention are on user pages of accounts which satisfy one or both of the following: (1) editors who have scarcely done any editing (including one whose only edit ever was to create a page with that transclusion); (2) editors for whom actually contributing to the encyclopaedia is a small minority of what they do, and for most if not all of whom playing around in user space and elsewhere constitutes more of their editing than anything to do with contributing to the encyclopaedia (including one for whom more than 93% of editing is other than article contributions, with userspace being the biggest share).
  5. I suggest actually getting on with contributing to the encyclopaedia might perhaps be a more useful use of both your time and mine than spending time on trying to get nonsense restored. JBW (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
    That sounds like a good plan. PS there is a template styles page I started on April Fools that meets G8. You may want to check my edit history for more. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
    Here, this page is eligible for G8: Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2023/The Keepy Uppy Balloon/balloon.css Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

136.158.25.162 and 136.158.17.174

Hello JBW, on 25 March you rightly blocked User:136.158.17.174 who was repeatedly adding incorrect information to a few articles, especially Caning in Singapore. He or she has now reappeared as 136.158.25.162 and has been adding the same errors back. It is an IP in the Philippines. How can we stop this person's vandalising? (I have reverted the incorrect edits in that article.) Alarics (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Alarics: I have blocked 136.158.25.162 for 3 months, and I have partially blocked the IP range 136.158.0.0/16, which covers both of those IP addresses, from the articles they have both edited, and other articles on similar subjects that one of them has edited, for 5 months. Please let me know if you see any more problematic editing that seems to come from the same person (maybe on other related articles, or on the same articles using another IP range) and I'll see whether I think anything more should be done. JBW (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks -- Alarics (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps another spam artist?

Hi James. Please look at this. He hasn't done any editing at all for the 8 months on Wiki. Looks like he might be wanting to use the project as a a piece of vanity spam, although his user page has stalled. Either way, a bit of a waste of space. Acabashi (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SKKAMBOJ/sandbox&oldid=1114009004

@Acabashi: Within a short time, the editor created a self-promotional vanity draft article, now deleted, and this incomplete start at a userspace draft, and has not edited since. I find that most often an editor who has done this sort of thing and then not edited over a time span significantly longer than the time over which they edited never comes back. Anyway, I've deleted the page as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, and posted a nessage to the user talk page about using Wikipedia to host personal web pages, just in case they do come back some time. JBW (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Unusual things in Philippine music

Hi, JB. Seems to me that the Notable shows sections of annual Philippine music pages (e.g.: 2023 in Philippine music#Notable shows) go against WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTPROMO. Mind taking a look when you get a chance? Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes, I'll have a look when I have time, but I find that the whole area of Philippine entertainment (music, television, radio, whatever) is so full of total crap, and it takes so much time and effort to check it, that over the years I've become more and more inclined to the attitude "oh, more Filipino rubbish... I'll move on to something else". What is it about Filipino culture that makes posting unsuitable stuff about entertainments to Wikipedia such a populat national pastime? JBW (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Junior ice hockey world championship articles

Hi JBW, what's going on here? You moved the 2023 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships article, but now it's already deleted. Maiō T. (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Maiō T.: The page was moved to draftspace by Onel5969, and if you woukd like to know why then you should ask him. I know no more about his decision than you. JBW (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I left a message for them on their talk page, but in essence, it has zero in-depth independent sources. Onel5969 TT me 12:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Please see this talk. I plan to rename several articles. Maiō T. (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

IP hopping genre warrior

Hi, JB. You should check out the IPs here when you get a chance; they're like the metal version of the "DESTROY" vandal. The most recent one is currently blocked.   – Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, JB. See here for an example; at least four IP ranges from Indonesia have been changing and removing content with no explanation. The IPs are the ones starting with 112, 114, and 139.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblock me

I've done nothing wrong, the user violating hidden notes on Pokemon Ultimate Journeys started this, he's the one who should be blocked, not me! TheCatLife (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@TheCatLife: You were edit-warring. Whether anyone else has done anything wrong or not makes no difference to that. JBW (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request on Ultimate Journeys

Hey! I saw you reverted the addition of an edit request to the talk page of Ultimate Journeys. That was my fault. I had forgotten that doing so would be considered requesting an editor to make an edit to evade a block and had suggested they make an edit request to add that information. I did not mean to encourage the user to evade the block, it was simply a lapse of memory. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Don't worry about it; on the scale of breaches of Wikipedia policies it's a very low level one. In fact, to be honest, I'm in two minds as to whether it would have been better to have just left it, since the edit that was being requested may well have been a good one. JBW (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Merewether High School

Hello, you protected this article 11 years ago. I thought we could now lift protection given that the vandals will be long gone? Thanks. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@LibStar:  Done Though my experience of school article vandalism gives me no confidence that the vandalism will be gone, even if the particular vandals are. JBW (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Manu Kumar Srivastava

You deleted this article as speedy deletion. I am not agree with this deletion. Please tell me if the old content and sources was same as my version. If not please refund the article. Govsub (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, as you must know, the content of the new version of the article was not identical to the old one, but it was substantially similar, and such changes as there are do not in any way diminish the reasons given in the deleteion discussion for deletion. Nevertheless, I am willing to consider whether restoring the article would be a good idea, when you have answered the following questions:
  1. What is your connection to Manu Kumar Srivastava?
  2. What is your connection to the previous accounts which have edited the article about him?
  3. Who is paying you for your work here? (Note that this is not an optional question, because the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure by any paid editor. Also, to avoid a very common misinterpretation, editing is paid editing if it is done as part of paid work, whether for an employer, a client, of anyone else, whether there is a specific payment for the Wikipedia editing or not. JBW (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry for late reply, suffering from some health issues.
    1. Haven’t any connection with Srivastava.
    2. Haven’t any connection with anyone.
    3. I am not working here for money.
    I am here to contribute in this section. Srivastava seems notable to me because he served as chief secretary of Maharashtra, served as Additional Municipal Commissioner, served as Additional Chief Secretary- Revenue and Forests Department and Additional Chief Secretary - Home Department. He is also chairman of Maharashtra Rail Infrastructure Development Corporation. So speedy deletion isn’t the solution . Govsub (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, it looked as though you were editing on behalf of someone, but from what you say that was a misleading impression. As for the article, here are my thoughts:
  1. The new article was not identical to the deleted one, but it was substantially similar, and the changes made did not significantly alter the relevance of the reasons given for deletion. The purpose of allowing speedy deletion of pages recreated following deletion as the outcome of a deletion discussion is to prevent editors spending time on repeating essentially the same discussion, probably with the same result. Obviously that time could be spent more usefully on other work.
  2. I have found over the years that there is a huge range in opinions as to how different a new version of an article has to be from a deleted one in order to, so invalidate a speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion G4, so much so that it simply isn't worth arguing over. Therefore if you tell me that, despite what I have said above, you still wish for the article to be restored, then I will restore it and take it immediately to another deletion discussion. In view of what I have just said, that may well turn out to be a waste of everybody's time, including yours. You may therefore wish to carefully consider whether you wish to do that. JBW (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

Now that they've been indeffed, Ron Johnson Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be using their talk page to make the same sorts of edits they were blocked for, such as here. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@SamX: No, it isn't allowed, and I've removed talk page access. Thanks for letting me know. JBW (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Action under review

Once of your recent actions is under review. Please go to WP:XRV to discuss this. Indy208 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Protection error?

See this protection log. The protection for Ronald Reagan must be an error, the last time it was semi-protected, that was in 2011, and the duration was set to Indefinite, while it was also move-protected. However, in February 2023, it was extended confirmed protected for a period of three months, after which, the semi-protection was returned, this time for a period of 1 year (set for expiry on May 27, 2024). Please restore previous semi-protection and move-protection settings. Please... RMXY (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@RapMonstaXY: OK, I've checked the protection history, and my short answer is that I am not willing to make the suggested change without consulting the administrators who made the changes you refer to. However, since I have put some time into investigating the history of the issue, I will post an account of my conclusions here, so that if any of those administrators wishes to consider the matter, my comments may possibly be helpful to them. The situation is, I think, essentially as follows. (Please correct me if I have got any significant details wrong.) After persistent vandalism and numerous time-limited semi-protections at various times from 2006 to 2011, Slon02 imposed indefinite semi-protection way back in December 2011. In February of this year, following a request for page protection, Deepfriedokra upped this to extended confirmed for 3 months. Following the end of that protection, vandalism resumed, including some grossly unacceptable vandalism (now revision deleted) and Widr restored semi-protection for a year. From the way you have expressed yourself, it seems likely that you think that the end result of these changes, namely complete loss of all protection, rather than a return to the status quo of semi-protection, was an unfortunate side-effect of the temporary change to extended confirmed, rather than a planned outcome. You may be right, but it is also possible that one or both of Deepfried and Widr has made a conscious choice to end the protection after a limited time, and if so then it would not be right for me to unilaterally overturn their decision without consulting them. No administrator likes protecting articles for a long time (at least I hope none does), but my own view is that in this case the history of the article so strongly suggests that the end of protection will just lead to further vandalism that indefinite semi-protection is the lesser evil. However, there are many editors, including administrators, who have an even stronger aversion to long-term protection than I do, so one or both of Deepfriedokra and Widr may disagree with my view. JBW (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I have such a aversion. Sometimes protection outlives its usefulness and unnecessarily stops constructive edits. Indefinite protection is usually an anachronism-- occasionally, we see dismayed requests for unprotection ten years after it was applied. Not to say it is always unneeded today, but those occurrences are rare. The extended protection was needed at the time due to autoconfirmed sock puppets. Then we returned to semi. This indefinite SP from 2011 sounds like an anachronism. If there is ongoing vandalism or disruption not stopped by current protection, then it needs upgrading. I don't think any reasonable admin would increase duration on a currently protected page. It would be far wiser and far more prudent to see what happened after the protection expires and then reprotect if needed. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello JBW

I am always interested in mathematics and that's why I started to study advanced mathematics at younger age and it's been 4 years.You are my next idol in Wikipedia just because you contributed appreciable time on Wikipedia and I need your guidance in Wikipedia.If you can help me I will appreciate it. Yuthfghds (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, JB. Please delete this edit summary when you get a chance, Google Translate says it's a homophobic insult in Hindi.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68:  Done, and several more similar edit summaries from the same /64 IP range. I've also put some blocks in the way of editing from that range, but I won't be greatly surprised if the person moves to another range. JBW (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you share with me any more information about the other articles affected and the edit summaries they used? I'm wondering if it might be user Bengalische Flamme editing while signed out to avoid scrutiny.
An IP editor in the same range solicited me on my talk page to punish an "Indian" editor for "vandalism".[7] I didn't see it as vandalism, and took no action. The next day Bengalische Flamme reverted the so called vandalism with the edit summary, "Undid revision 1158465303 by Hexatron93 (talk) revert Indian vandal editor! Please stop this nonsense vandalism otherwise i will report you to ANI 🛑 ✋🏻".[8] Moments later, a different IP address that geolocates to the same part of Germany reverted the original post to my talk page with the edit summary, "no longer needed! Good for nothing".[9]
I warned Bengalische Flamme (German for Bengali Flame - we don't get many editors from Germany intensively editing Bangladeshi/Bengali topics) against calling what could be a good faith edit vandalism. A short back and forth ensued during which they did not come across as calm, cool, and mature.[10] They then blanked their talk page with the edit summary, "Freak show! It doesn’t need a research to understand initial vandalism and typo lol 😂".
Perhaps it is coincidence that ten hours later the last article I edited, Zayed Khan (Bangladeshi actor), was targeted by an IP in this range (stalking?) making a leading character "typo" in the word "Bangladesh" and spewing insults in Hindi (possibly thinking they're addressing an "Indian").
I'm not sure there's enough to take to WP:SPI yet, which is why I'm asking if you saw any other evidence that would make the pattern clearer. What I think of as angry young man behaviour never ends well, so I'd like to head it off before it becomes more disruptive. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Worldbruce: First of all, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Secondly, my apologies for not responding sooner. When I first read your message, IT problems made it difficult to post an answer, so I meant to get back to it later, but then didn't.
When I had typed out an answer to you here, I decided to have one more look at Bengalische Flamme before saving my message. When I did so, I saw this edit, which was enough to significantly change my mind about the situation. Rather than spend time rewriting the whole thing, I am posting basically my original message, with the new information added at the end.
I was virtually certain this would be someone with an account editing logged out, but I did not know what account. With the help of your suggestion, I have checked the editing history of Bengalische Flamme against the IP editing, and I decided that it is much more likely than not that you are right about it being the same person, but the evidence fell just short of making me happy to block the account. I have, however, blocked the whole IP range concerned (2A0A:A546:C369:0:0:0:0:0/64) for a month, including logged in editing, and two shorter ranges for a longer period, but anon-only. If it is indeed Bengalische Flamme, and if they try to edit within the month then they should get the message, and if it isn't, then since there is no other history of IP editing in the range ever, the likelihood of collateral damage on anyone other than the IP troll is tiny.
I did intend to email you the edit summaries which I had revision deleted, but I found I couldn't, because they had been oversighted. I personally think that was a misuse of the oversight tool, but it's difficult to do anything about it, as there is no accountability for oversighters: it isn't even possible for me to know which oversighter did it, so I can't even ask them what their reason was. However, the edit summaries were in Hindi but written in the Roman alphabet rather than the Hindi alphabet, and one of them I happen to remember included, in Google's translation, the words "my dog will fuck you". The other edit summaries were essentially similar in nature. The edits concerned were this one, this one, and this one.
Since doing that, as I said above, I have seen this edit which makes me 100% certain that the two ranges 2A00:A200:0:816:0:0:0:0/64 and 2A0A:A546:C369:0:0:0:0/64 are the same person: IP editors from the same part of Germany editing exclusively about Bangladesh, and even in such a small amount of editing there are also other unmistakable similarities. It also confirms a connection to the account Bengalische Flamme, and together with the other evidence that is now enough to make me willing to give that account a warning and a short block. Please feel very welcome to contact me again if you have anything else relevant to say, or if you see any more of the same in the future. JBW (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Finding Sofia

Hello, I'm a little confused by this. The film's "Press Kit.PDF" was created on March 30, 2016 (whereas our article wasn't created until April 11), the exact same content was removed in 2016 for copyvio at the time, I don't see anywhere that the website even mentions Wikipedia (except in a link to one of the individual's Wiki article) let alone "cites Wiki as a source", and the only thing dated 2019 on the website is the Twitter feed. I'm sorry I didn't list which revisions needed deleting because they all essentially need deleted (a very cursory glance at the very short page history shows MRD2014's edit summary (linked above, edit #2 to the article) was "Removing plot because it is a copyright infringement"). I know I'm the pariah of Wikipedia, but without trying to be bitey myself, maybe if you had spent more than "a minute" looking into it you would have seen these details? - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Adolphus79: You are, I'm afraid, right. I was guilty of glancing at things superficially and jumping to conclusions hastily. I am usually more careful (I think) and I have no excuse for not doing so this time. 😕 I will do the revision deletion. Thank you for drawing my attention to my mistake, so that I can correct it. JBW (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are afraid of me being correct about something, but thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Adolphus79: OK, it was not the fact that you were right about something, but the fact that what you were right about was that I was wrong, that "I'm afraid" was meant to refer to. JBW (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Mrb Rafi/Serbian Dancing Lady

There is an unsubmitted and very short draft on the same topic. Since it was too short, I took the liberty to work from scratch. A good faith declaration, I first created it on simple english wikipedia and then copied the same article into one of my subpages. I acknowledge that the language and structure differs widely in simple english wiki and enwiki and I'll work on that. I was IP blocked on enwiki from my home yesterday and so did it on simple english then. Now using my lab wifi to edit enwiki.

I noticed that, I may have triggered a filter, perhaps for putting nypost in the reference. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, nypost is unreliable for mostly local government related topics. Would it be considered unreliable for this topic as well? I'll be grateful if you take some time to reflect on this topic's notability, language, reference and other aspects. TIA -- BIDROHI Hello.. 07:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Gatik draft

Hi JBW, I hope you are well. I'm coming to you for some advice on the Draft:Gatik you declined. I was hoping you could provide me with some insight on which parts of the draft read like an advertisement so that I can move forward with bringing the draft up to Wikipedia's standards. Just to clarify, I have a COI which you can learn more about at my user page. Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. I really appreciate it! Miranda at Gatik (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page. JBW (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda–Taliban relation

When you remove a speedy for copyvio from an article, please revdel the versions which contained the copyvio. About 40% of the article was copied from the two indicated sources, I don't know if other bits came from other sources or not. Fram (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Fram. I have gone back and checked the article's history. When I saw your speedy deletion request, I checked the "Copyvios report" links, and saw only a very small amount of copied text, but I have now checked against the version of the article as it was when you posted the speedy deletion tag, rather than as it was when I saw the tag, and I have found a very different picture. As you have correctly pointed out, a substantial proportion of the article was copied from the sources you gave; also, much if it has since then been rephrased sufficiently for me to have missed the copyvio first time, but still close enough to the original to be recognisably derived from it once I studied it more thoroughly. Clearly I was not careful enough in checking the first time. Moreover, further searches revealed that the rest of the article, not derived from the two sources you listed, was essentially copied from a third source, so I have deleted the article. My sincere thanks to you for drawing this to my attention, so that I have been able to go back and correct my mistake. JBW (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, and no problem! I hadn't even noticed the copyvio of that third source, you went the extra mile when I just asked you to revdel the older versions. Nice work. Fram (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock review - Timmy96. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Pages for deletion.

Hello, I've come across these two pages diff:1160567636 and diff:1160567747 created by someone who is likely not new - on another user's userspace. I am unsure if there is a speedy deletion template appropriate for this situation, so I just decided to inform you (as you are an admin who is currently deleting pages).
By the way, they first tried editing another user's page directly, a filter prevented them. – 2804:F14:80F5:5E01:70AF:B667:BC91:3B3B (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe they are new hm, didn't notice the account was 14 days old and had other (random) edits on commons. At any rate, the filtered edit and these two pages seemed very targeted. – 2804:F14:80F5:5E01:70AF:B667:BC91:3B3B (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree this is probably not a new editor. I think I could reasonably indefinitely block the account on the basis of what they have done so far, including the attempted edit blocked by an edit filter, but for now I have deleted the pages created and posted a couple of warnings, and I'll wait and see. Please feel welcome to contact me again if you see any more of the same. JBW (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thank you. – 2804:F14:80F5:5E01:70AF:B667:BC91:3B3B (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

A long-term sleeper 😴

I have just seen an account 15 years and nine months old, which made its first edits today. This is probably a personal record for me. Could it even be a site-wide record? JBW (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

... and I have just received thanks for a truly trivial edit (removing an overlink) which I made about eight and a half years ago. That certainly isn't a record, because at least once I've had thanks after more than a decade, but it still seems remarkable to me that anyone woul do that. JBW (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

How do I find my deleted article draft?

Hello fellow contributor. My article has been set to "Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Jet Tern Marine". I have read your comments as well as read up more on the Wiki Rules and now have a better understand of how to properly re-create this article without violating any of the rules.

I just have one little question: is my article still accessible for editing? I would like to work from my original draft and make my edits directly there. If it is still accessible, could you help me to understand where?

All the best

Leo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Studio Vientiane (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Drfazeelaabbasidfa

Drfazeelaabbasidfa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a sockpuppet of Drfazeelaabbasiofficial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was indeffed by Cabayi on the 13th. Not sure if any action is needed since they haven't edited since my warning, but I figured I should pass this along in case you weren't already aware. — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@SamX: No, I wasn't already aware, so thank you for telling me. I've blocked the sockpuppet. It was almost certain that she would have been blocked soon anyway if she carried on editing, but it’s helpful to be able to get it sone without more waiting and checking. JBW (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Unprotect Finger

You made an indefinite semi-protection of this article in January, 2015. An IP editor has asked for it to be unprotected. I agree, and have it on my watchlist to monitor any unwarranted activity. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zefr:  Done. I don't think I have indefinitely protected any articles for a long time now, but evidently back in 2015 I was doing so. JBW (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Cartscalif2

Might need to tag as a sock of User:Lithuaniaball2 since he is the same person. See WP:LTA/LB2 LDM2003 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@LDM2003: I'm not sure whether that's a good idea or not. By the time it gets to this stage tagging every new sockpuppet probably won't achieve much, and may even be counterproductive, as the tags may be seen by the troll as badges of honour. In this situation I usually follow revert, block, ignore. On the other hand, having fairly full documentation can help editors to spot future sockpuppets. I am leaving it for now, but I may come back to it. JBW (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Don't forget to put a protection template {{pp-vandalism|small-yes}} on List of Acura vehicles. LDM2003 (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I usually leave that for a bot to do automatically. I don't see any great importance in having the template in place immediately. However, since you have asked, I'll do it this time, if it hasn't already been done. JBW (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Why was my personal sandbox deleted

Why was my personal sandbox (User:Mariosin/sandbox) deleted? I'm just curious to know. I also which to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement. Mariosin (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mariosin: Because, as Pi.1415926535 indicated on your talk page, the page did not seem to be work for Wikipedia: it looked more like a page for your personal use. As for retrieving the material, if you mean for your personal use off Wikipedia then you can enable email via the "preferences" link at the top of the page, and then I will email it to you. If you mean you want the material restored to Wikipedia then the answer is "no", unless you can provide a convincing reason why it should be. JBW (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean for personal use off Wikipedia and I did enable my email. I would prefer for it to be sent soon, although I am not in a major rush for anything. Mariosin (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Good Question? Why? SatoshiYak (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
(by talk reader) @SatoshiYak: Should we assume that you are a sockpuppet account of Mariosin? An answer was already provided to Mariosin and I'll bet you suffer from banner blindness, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Range block

FYI your range block of 2603:8080:F600:0:0:0:0:0/48 is likely too wide/unneeded. It's Charter/Spectrum so one user is going to be on one /64 until the rapture, and probably even after that. Functionally static. If there were multiple users on the /48 doing the same thing, they were likely different people. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I have checked again, and replaced the block by blocks on two /64 ranges. Those two may be, as you suggest, different people, or they may be one person with access to two different connections, both using the same ISP and on the same IP range; either way, they were both responsible for similar kinds of unconstructive editing, and at least one of the two is certainly someone who has previously been blocked multiple times. On the whole, they look to me similar enough to make one person seem more likely than two, but it really doesn't matter, as either way they have done editing which justifies a block, in my opinion. I checked every /64 IP range which has edited at any time since the end of August 2022, and for those ranges I looked at their entire editing history ever, not just since August 2022. There were altogether 361 edits, of which 351 were one of those two disruptive ranges, 6 others were minor but unconstructive edits, and 4 were minor but constructive edits. From that, I conclude that you are right in saying that the /48 block was unneeded, but the effect of giving that /48 block, rather than the two /64 blocks, was likely to be very small, and that very small effect might well if anything do a little more good than harm. So, in summary: yes, the /48 block was unneeded, and now removed, but I'm not worried about it. JBW (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

sock

Hi, this user has multiple socks as I can see it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Md_Majedul_Islam_(Sonju)

this one not blocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Md_Sojol_Islam

this one blocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Md_Afrul Tehonk (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tehonk: What indicates that these are all the same person? It isn't obvious to me. JBW (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@JBW last two trying to add same fake names (1, 2) so these are obvious but you're right, the first one is not obvious, name similarity got me confused, Also unblock requests on these two pages (1, 2) looked similar, but probably the first one is irrelevant. Tehonk (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Tehonk: Those edits, adding the same name to the same article are the only ones I have seen that look like blatant sockpuppetry, but having spent some time checking the histories of the accounts, I have come to the conclusion that the two accounts are indeed the same person, with other edits being to some extent a smokescreen, so I have blocked the new account. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. JBW (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Lifting page protections/shortening them?

Hi once again,

If you recall my last appearance on your talk page, you'll remember me complaining about a very, very persistent IP vandal popping up every couple of months to vandalise the Alexander Dennis page in the exact same fashion.

It seems that mercifully, they've gone quiet since the page protection was implemented. However, I'm starting to come of the opinion that maybe page protection for an entire year on these assorted articles was slightly overkill, especially since having to perform a semi-protected edit request for a new user. I also get the feeling that despite the cause to stop vandalism, locking out IPs from editing when its largely only me editing the pages comes off as very power grabbish.

Now I'm not sure whether a 'bad impression' really constitutes Wikipedia policy, but again, I do feel that a year's worth of page protection is slightly too long. As such, I'd like to propose either shorterning the period or removing the protection altogether. Unless the IP vandal decides to get back into it as soon as page protection is rescinded, I don't think the pages will suffer from that problem in the short term and the pages will probably benefit from being open to the public again. Hullian111 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hullian111: No, I don't remember your last appearance here: 6 months is more than my memory span. However, thanks for the link to the archive, so that I could quickly find out what you were referring to. I really dislike protecting articles for such long times, and very rarely do so. I can only assume that the troublesome editor must have been very persistent for a very long time, but I'm far too tired to look into the history now, so I've just removed the page protections, trusting that you know much better than I do what the situation is. Thanks for letting me know about it. JBW (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Seamus Hasson

You recently prodded Seamus Hasson and it was removed. Fine. However the talk page has now gotten rather suspicious. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now it's just getting ridiculous. Not entirely sure what they're trying to achieve but it's either comical or the most blatant sock/meat puppetry I've ever seen. Canterbury Tail talk 11:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I've just gone and AfDd it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@Canterbury Tail: I'm not sure why you say "either comical or the most blatant sock/meat puppetry I've ever seen"; I would say it's both. I went to the talk page of the creator of the article, intending to post a message, but I found you have already posted a message saying pretty well the same as I was planning on saying. I'll contribute to the AfD when I have more time. JBW (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
How have neither of you any comprehension of the concerns which were felt upon the proposal to delete an article chronicling the life of a very distinguished man? Glenshane (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Why my submission was declined?

You have declined my review submission of Draft:Chanda Sahib invasion of Travancore (it was Siege of Tovala before). I think you did your web search by searching 'siege of Tovala'. The reason why I gave that name to the article was, it was a siege and the location was Tovala. Now I changed the title name into'Chanda Sahib invasion of Travancore' because I think it is more suitable. Now you could do your web search and confirm the event. You said that the resources doesn't mention the siege at all.

Here are the sources that mentions the events:

https://books.google.co.in/books/content?id=ro8SLhyAc9AC&pg=PA65&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3dRp7vxJR1d9HpY2E8AyDM4AZnfg&w=1280 (second paragraph)


https://books.google.com/books/about/Indica.html?id=PAlDAAAAYAAJ#Chanda%20Tovala (103rd page)


https://books.google.co.in/books/content?id=49F9hXNNjzsC&pg=PA343&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3rjn-PuinEHjS_E0YOHF-LutlnjQ&w=1025 (3rd paragraph)


https://books.google.co.in/books/publisher/content?id=AVd1AQAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA40&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1NIUJn5M5HNHB6LuIBtVbhrEa8ug&w=1280 (5th paragraph)


https://books.google.co.in/books/content?id=wnAjqjhc1VcC&pg=PA141&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3BVmlRGxYst1vgXEEisWghIYH7lA&w=1280 (content after the subheading)


https://books.google.com/books/about/English_East_India_Company_and_the_Local.html?id=SlVuAAAAMAAJ#chanda%20sahib (page 185)


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336317790_CONQUEST_OF_TRAVANCORE_BY_CHANDA_SAHIB (full)


https://dutchinkerala.com/1741.php (second paragraph)


https://www.jstor.org/stable/44304325 (first paragraph)


https://www.dailyo.in/politics/indian-freedom-struggle-british-dutch-east-india-company-travancore-carnatic-nawab-hyder-ali-tipu-sultan-colachel-day-12198 (the event in 1740)


I hope you will take an action Sir/Mam. Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ajayraj890: Certainly both my searches in the works you cited and my web searches did include looking for the precise wording "siege of Tovala", but I also searched for a number of other combinations of information in the draft which I thought looked potentially useful, and found nothing. I will try to check the references you have given above at some time when I am on a computer; at present I am on a phone, and checking in Google books and so on is far too fiddly and awkward. It may help me to find the information more quickly and easily if you can give me an exact quote to look for in each reference. They don't have to be long or detailed excerpts: just a few words to help me find the right place. JBW (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Quotations from the sources

Of course. Here are the quotations:

On 8 March 1740, there was fighting between the forces of the Nawab and Travancore.41 The Nawab's forces overpowered the army of Travancore on the side of Tovala and captured the place.(Book:The Dutch Power in Kerala, 1729-1758,Author:O.M Koshy,)


About this time Nagercoil, Suchindram and Kottar were invaded by Chanda Sahib and Baba Sahib, two relatives of the Nawab of Arcot, Dost Ali Khan. Their object was the acquisition of some territory for the Nawab's son. The Dalawa tried to fight them out; but failing in this, he gave them large presents and bought them off. The two chiefs in- mediately retraced their steps and Nanjanad was free again.(Books:The Travancore State Manual and The Travancore State Manual-A commentary, Author:V Nagam Aiya)


During the reign of Martanda Varma the security of the Eastern frontier was seriously threatened. About 1740 Nagercoil, Suchindram and Kottar were invaded by Chanda Sahib and Banda Sahib, two relatives of the Nawab of Arcot.(Book:Kerala History and its Makers, Author: V. Shreedhara Menon)


From the very early days of his reign, Rama Varma was called upon to face the invasion of Travancore territory across the Ghauts by the armies of the Nawab of the Carnatic.(Book:Rama Varma of Travancore,Author:B. Sobhanan)


Very soon around February or March 1740. Chanda Sahib and his brother Bada Sahib attacked Travancore. Ramayyan Dalawa was ordered to defend Travancore territory and drive out the marauders.(Book: English East India Company and the Local Rulers in Kerala)


the Muhammadans under Safdar Ali Khan ravaged the country as well as Tanjore, Travancore, and the Western Coast.(Book:Illustrated Guide to the South Indian Railway)


the later part of the 18th Century, Chanda Sahib, a rebel commandant related to the Nawab of Arcot attached Nagercoil and other areas. Travancore had to contend with such attacks and momentary demands from the Carnatic Nawab....(Book:National Conference on Multidisciplinary Research)


a strong army under Chanda Sabib and Budda Sahib entered the territories of Travancore through the Aramboly pass.(Book:Eighteenth Century India)


... that the forces of Chanda Sahib had seized Tovala from the King of Travancore and had entered Kottar.(Book:Indica)


...king of Travancore with Banda Sahib, whose family had just visited Pondichery. Banda Sahib, the brother of Chanda Sahib, had prom- ised the commander of Pondichery to live in peace with Martanda Varma as soon as he had paid his tribute.(Book:Thiru Tamil Thevanaar)


About 1740. Nagercoil. Suchindram. and Kottar were invaded by Chanda Sahib and Banda Sahib. two relatives of the Nawab. The Travancore forces under Ramayyan Dalawa met the invaders in battle.(Book:Kerala District Gazetteers: Trivandrum (supplement))


The imperial army first stormed and captured Tanjoresc and placed it under Bode Sahib . the brother of Chanda Sahib . It then marched south. towards the regions of the Vaigai and Tambraparni. attacked Travancore.(Book:Indian Antiquary)


.In 1740. Nagercoil. Suchindram and Kottar were invaded by Chanda Sahib and Baba Sahib. two relatives of the Nawab of Arcot.(Book:Central Archives, Thiruvananthapuram)


..A.D. 1740 the Nawab of Arcot placed Safdar All Khan and Chanda Sahib .both relatives of the Nawab of Arcot. at the head of a large army and entrusted them with the invasion of Travancore.(Book:Studies in Indian History)


Chanda Sahib has been known to Travancore historians only as an intruder bought off by Marthanda Varmai (1729-1758).(Article: CONQUEST OF TRAVANCORE BY CHANDA SAHIB


In 1740, when Marthanda Varma was readying himself for his invasion at the north, the close kin of the Nawab of Arcot, Chanda Sahib and Beda Sahib(Article:1741 The Battle of Kulachal: A Turning Point in History)

Also, if you search 'Chanda Sahib Travancore' in search engines, you will get the books and articles easily



Ajayraj890 (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Hris Asnv/sandbox

Hey JBW--would you mind having a look at this request? Thanks so much, Drmies (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies:  Done JBW (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Liquid Smoke - 哈里森 伐木工人

My apologies for the mistake on liquid smoke earlier. I hadn't realized that it was flavoring as an additive and not the perception of it. Thanks again for correcting that. 哈里森 伐木工人 (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW/Archive_82&oldid=1164620876"