User talk:Yaris678

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Orphaned non-free image File:Manchester Science Festival poster.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Manchester Science Festival poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks b-bot. The file has been superseded by File:Poster for the 2015 Manchester Science Festival.pdf and so is no longer used. I have deleted the file. Yaris678 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[edit]

You recently blocked for "long term abuse". Based on what, please? The contributions page shows only two edits, one made last year, and seemingly good-faith, the other lacking a citation, but otherwise also good-faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, with only three edits, two from 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy,
Both of these blocks are part of a single range block.
See the discussion here and the history of that IP range here.
Yaris678 (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:* is back evading block at Football in Portugal and other articles. SLBedit (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Mahfiruz and others[edit]

Hi. The dynamic ip has again for the Nth time readded the deleted content, a mix of unsourced claims, or of claims based on a blog, sometimes keeping the source so that the content appears sourced when in fact the source says the contrary, sometimes blatantly contradicting reliable sources of the article without explanation. What do you want me to do? Put this sentence on the diff or on the talk page before reverting, would be enough?--Phso2 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's probably easiest to explain it more fully on the talk page and then, when you revert, give an edit summary like "unsourced and contradicting sources. See the talk page". Yaris678 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. If it is OK for you, i will then revert, and call you back the next time the text is edited in the same fashion.--Phso2 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Here you are. There is the same problem here with the same user: as soon as the page was unprotected the same multi-reverted unsourced content came back, including the usual source falsification on note 3.--Phso2 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Same user has now turned to new playgrounds [1], [2], [3]. No every contribution has been already added and reverted before this time for the second article, but the general pattern is always the same: addition of unsourced content often contradicting the sources, unability to even defend his/her point, source falsification etc. What can we do?--Phso2 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Phso2:
Sorry for the delay - I don't have much time to be on wiki at the moment.
It looks like you have found quite a pattern. Looking at your recent edits, some of those reverts may be related too. This is bigger than the protection of one or two pages.
I recommend you use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Start a new thread there, describing the pattern that you see being repeated over several pages and give links to show the pages and edits you are talking about. This will bring it to the attention of a larger number of admins. They will probably ask you a few questions and decide between them what is the most appropriate course of action.
Yaris678 (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, I will do it when I find the time to make a proper statement.--Phso2 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I, sorry I didn't notice you had responded on ANI. There is some surge of activity on Kösem Sultan currently, and on an lesser scale on [4] (not very very often, but on a very repetitive way). What do you think?--Phso2 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC) PS: perhaps also Turhan Hatice Sultan

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Yaris678. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)