You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
If you edit without an account, your IP address (2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63) is used to identify you instead.
We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).
See above conversation, except in this case your promotional intent and reference to 'we'--which indicates a desire to edit on behalf of the subject, as well as a communal use of the account--are enough to discourage further edits. I've reported your username for administrative attention, and will keep an eye on the article for further promotional edits. 2601:188:0:ABE6:88C9:71A8:B3A9:1FC6 (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I recognized that name! Haha same thing as above; you forget to mark them patrolled. Try to use WP:TW, it does it automatically. Good work marking the CSDs though! :) JTtheOG (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you reverted this per ENGVAR, I think you may not have noticed that a free image was replaced by a non-free one in that same edit. In such cases we revert to the free image and tag the non-free one for deletion. I'm just alerting you since you appear to be active in patrolling and you may not be aware of this and I appreciate your good work. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff06:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I reverted your edit at Lie, but immediately realized after that I had reinserted vandalism that you had removed. So I reverted myself. Sorry about that... AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite alright. I've explained my rationale further at the article's talk page. What's remarkable to me is that such lengthy unsourced expositions can reside on Wikipedia for almost a decade without being challenged or deleted. It may reflect the thoughts of an employee or someone who's unaffiliated, but it all appeared to be WP:OR. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it--the writing is poor, at least some of it is clearly your own opinion, and there's no indication what, if any of the content actually derives from the sources you've listed. I doubt it'll get much traction, but I've requested your account be blocked and the page be protected. I suspect your intentions are good, but that doesn't mean your edits are acceptable for an encyclopedia. 2601:188:0:ABE6:1962:13A4:DA85:41DE (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am trying to create a page for Graham John Bradley but haven't got a clue how to do it professionally. I have created a Sandbox but don't how to edit it and post it to the main Wikepedia page. I would appreciate anybody's help greatly.Bregawn83 (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia so please bare with me... I had some trouble with editing the King Neptune Statue of Virginia Beach page... I work for the artist so any and all information relayed is the complete story and journey of the statue's fabrication. I can assure none of the information is biased in any way. The text very closely mirrors the existing information, and provides more to clarify it, as well as make it a more cohesive description with better sentence structure. I can very easily have the exact text posted to the artist's official website which could be used as a source if that would be more satisfactory. Paul DiPasquale will soon be working collaboratively with another artist on a project that involves the Neptune sculpture, and we wanted to polish up the Wikipedia page so that all the information is correct for those who might search the statue more frequently due to this upcoming event Theangeloid (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, all content must be supported with WP:RELIABLESOURCES. And as you've seen at your talk page, WP:COI is an important guideline, and ought to be taken to heart. By all means add elaboration to the article, but it must be done with these policies in mind. We can not rely on WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, or inadequately sourced content, even if it derives from the suggest or his representatives. To do so would allow, for instance, Donald Trump to freely edit his own biography. Brrr. 2601:188:0:ABE6:ADA5:6A24:88B0:7BBC (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there 2601. Thanks for all you do to help Wikipedia. Were you aware that we have a page where you can report promotional usernames? it's located at WP:UAA.-- Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I say 'many times', it by aggravating necessity means under dozens of different accounts. Today the computer went kaput, and I had to shut the whole thing down a few times before it decided to operate again. You'd think the damn thing is powered by hamsters. Serves me right for using a 1973 monitor, made by AMC. 2601:188:0:ABE6:31AE:6C32:513:5211 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the mix up, I gave him a final warning about the 3RR, next time he will be reported and probably blocked, hopefully they will cool down. Jab843 (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should discuss here instead. I might be missing something but to cursory inspection the changes seem to be a net positive. Is there context I am missing? Prodegotalk04:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. If you do get a chance I may simply be missing them, could you link? This seems like an attempt at positive editing to me. Prodegotalk04:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego, I really do try to leave a clear record in my edit summaries, where I listed some of the pages which were copied; I added another at the article's talk page. This has festered for well over two hours, and I'm beyond disgusted at this point. Plus, I've stayed up too late already, considering my early hours to teach in the morning. If the promotional and copyvio business isn't obvious I'm at a loss. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego, I believe the IP needs their beauty nap. I approve of their edits--the editor, now indef-blocked, did nothing but copy and paste the school website into the article, unfortunately. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late in the evening and in life for a beauty nap. I also issued a welcome, numerous warnings and suggestions at the user's talk page, which I explained at the AIV report. This was a single purpose promotional account, who implicitly admitted their COI at a talk page. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi My name is Eelco Schattorie and some one changed my whole page incorrectly and incomplete without my permission and i am trying to update it.
Why are you keep changing it back???? please inbox me at eschattorie@icloud.com your influencing my career this way!!! (Eelco Schattorie (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Please understand that it's not 'your page', and read WP:COI. You can not add unsourced content, nor remove content that's reliably sourced; please also read WP:RELIABLE. Nor can you add content that appears promotional. If there are substantive changes that need to be made, and can be supported by reliable sources, please use the article talk page to discuss possible updates. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Probably no need to lock the article again, unless more group members come back to "cleanse" the article of negative thoughts. Bkarcher (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been edited to remove the COI input and also to integrate the controversies into the main article. Can the COI tag be removed now? Bkarcher (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've made at least four errors in perhaps ten minutes: Misconstrued a spammer's purpose for editing; persistently harassed me at my talk page after I made it plain you weren't welcome here; referred to my removal of your inappropriate warnings as edit warring, when any unblocked account is welcome to remove such; and opened a report for edit warring. I suggest you walk back the report, rather than continue down this road. And as previously requested, do not post here again. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting my removal of the COI tag on that article. It took me a second, but I finally saw the similarity with the username and the article - OOPS! :-). Anyways, good catch and much appreciated. ~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs)03:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should create an account! We could use a contributor like you, and you'd get to take advantage of a lot of things that you wouldn't be able to without one. Give it some thought, and please don't hesitate to message me if you have any questions. We need more contributors, and you'd do well here :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs)03:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, back to the Tamil article: I've reread the translation, and poor as it is, I do find it promotional enough to deep-six it as thoroughly unencyclopedic. As for the other matter, I edited for many years with a registered account, wrote dozens of articles and contributed substantially to many more, received barnstars and requests to become an admin, etc. Also am the subject of a bio here. Now I'm paid to write for publication, and prefer to edit here anonymously, mostly in this capacity. But thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I wanted to reach out to you about recent flags on the Yale SOM page. I work for Yale SOM and have been updating the page to make sure it is factually accurate. I removed the one copyright violation the other day, but noticed the flag is still active on the page. I was wondering if you could suggest how I might remedy this. There might be other elements of the page that are close to the original source copy, but these were written long ago by another Wikipedia user--I'm not sure who. -Meredithmc --Meredithmc (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at it later. Thank you for announcing your affiliation, and please read our guidelines at WP:COI. If there's any copyright violation or close paraphrasing of other sources, then an issue would still exist. I'll also look at content and tone to see if it's promotional. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of National Centre for Excellence
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi - blocked the Emrul CSE as a sock of Emrul Chowdhury. Would you open an SPI, with Emrul Chowdhury as the master and the Emrul CSE account and any others you can find as the socks? I can do it but I don't have time today to look up the diffs (traveling this afternoon until Wednesday) and I'm not as familiar with the guy as you seem to be.
If you don't want to or can't, please ping me back with a list of the similarities and some supporting diffs, and I'll open an SPI when I get back home. Thanks. :-) Katietalk15:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First--thank you, KrakatoaKatie. I may not get around to it soon either, but the Rosetta Stone for these accounts is the page history here [3]. I think NeilN blocked the previous three registered accounts, which is why I dropped a message on his page, and there's a possibility that there are related IPs on other university articles edited by Emrul CSE. Thanks again and good travels, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why do keep doing this to my work all the Sources are reliable and my article has value information to the music community please remove your tag or look up Tripsane and add sources yourselfReporterBobMyer (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What to do if tagging speedy delete with more than one criteria
Hi and thanks for patrolling newly created pages. When you are tagging an article with speedy delete having more than one criteria, type {{db-multiple}} . For example, when an article is unremarkable and promotional, tag it with {{db-multiple|A7|G11}} where A7 means unremarkable and G11 means promotional instead of typing {{db-spam}} {{db-band}} . If you need help, do let me know. Happy Editing Ayub407talk14:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You just responded to my request to unblock changes but I still have questions. This is my first time contributing and, while I appreciate the need to cite references, I am unclear on a few things and I want to avoid being blocked again.
My intention is to update Damien Richardson's wiki page to include his medical career. Please let me know if the following cites will be acceptable:
3) No reference for the fact that he is married with 3 kids
4) How do I post his photo? I cannot re-upload and do not know how to access it
5) Ideally, the page title would include his MD PHD designation but I couldn't figure out how to add that and I don't want to lose the search result placement by creating a new page.
I apologize for the lengthy request but Wikipedia has to be the most un-friendly UI I have ever experienced. The content I am trying to post is not controversial.
Hi Courtrich05. Firstly, I have no idea how you managed to stick a block template on your own talk page--as far as I can see nobody else blocked you. As for the biography, please read WP:RELIABLE. Unless content is significant enough to have received coverage, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. There's no intention to be unfriendly, but a lot of new users have the misapprehension that Wikipedia is something like a personal blog, where any family or professional news can be added. Please do read our guidelines--we don't add degrees to page titles; again, this would be inconsistent with encyclopedic formatting, and is appropriate for a resume. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I understand, thank you for explaining. I'm not trying to turn Wiki into a personal blog-- just simply thought the profile was incomplete. At the very least, it would be good to see the dates in his profile be consistent. The text shows his career ended in 2002, while his stats box shows 2004. I also have no idea how I added a block template here. My apologies if I did something wrong--again the UI isn't exactly intuitive. Thank you!
I agree that it's rather slight. If I have a chance later I'll see if I can find more content from reliable sources online. I have family and friends who are represented (well, even my own bio) on Wikipedia, and there's all sorts of content I know personally but can not include.... 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I removed the {{unblock|suspected vandalism}} template you inadvertently inserted on your Talk page. Please note, however, that I added a {{connected contributor}} template to the Talk page for the article Damien Richardson (American football), which records that you have declared a conflict of interest with regard to that page (as the subject's spouse). Please see WP:COI for information and recommendations that apply specifically to you as a result of that declaration. General IzationTalk 20:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3), or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Draft:Beirut Art Residency. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the page you tagged was a draft, meaning that it is being worked on and not an article. They may also be intending to have the article reviewed prior to posting which will give them the appropriate feedback to make improvements. It may yet be eligible for speedy deletion but should be given a chance. Thanks 331dot (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It's a blatantly promotional draft, created by a COI account with an unacceptable username. Almost half the draft is also a copyright violation from the organization's website. These are reasons for my giving it so little slack. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A few sentences are copied from here [6], beginning with 'tucked away'. Generally such blatantly promotional material is copied from somewhere; I didn't run a check on this until after receiving a message from you. No harm done, but neither the user nor the draft figure to stay here for long. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Materialscientist has removed the reports and deemed them to be unactionable reports... If a sock investigation is started soon, then it may become more appropriate to re-report the accounts.
There may be more accounts that we aren't aware of yet, as the investigation progresses, then they can be added on as well... Thanks! Woeing (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for following up. Materialscientist is pretty nearly flawless on this sort of thing; despite the promotional business and copyright violations, what was reported was too flimsy to justify vandalism blocks. So far. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm In veritas. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Sevens Stadium without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You seem to be a very experienced editor, so sorry if there is confusion, but the content you removed had a valid reference. In veritas (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hi there, Thanks you for your comment. The page has been updated with reliable source with the link.
May I know which part of the article you think is not reliable? appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace n Mercy (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your reply. As I'm new user, I have tried my best to edit to fulfill the policy. Also to publish the reliable resource with the link to show that the article are genuine. Appreciate if you could you point out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace n Mercy (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of what you added was acceptable. As has been said, it's inadequately sourced and promotional in tone. Please read our guidelines carefully, and add content that is supported by reliable sources. The subject is clearly an honorable and spiritual person; an encyclopedia article isn't the place, however, to enumerate public appearances and honors, unless such information can be noted in brief, and with the proper references. Thanks again, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking time reading it. The articles are from reliable source, it might be promotion in tone. Thanks for your comment and suggestion.
I will try my best to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace n Mercy (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the press release you attached to my page below--it was promotional and appeared to be either a copyright violation or a close paraphrasing of another website. I've recommended you not edit, per WP:COI. Several editors have attempted to counsel you on the way Wikipedia works, and I'm disinclined to continue. If you wish to continue, please use the article's talk page. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, apologise for the trouble! Many thanks for making some changes.
May I ask you regarding my previous article Road to global peace, as you mentioned that the contents are all with promotional tone, however that was all real story of Lu. Would you mind give me some advise on how to publish it without conflicting any WP policies? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace n Mercy (talk • contribs) 14:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. As a registered account I was graced with rollback, and one of the advantages of working as an IP is that it compels me to take a few seconds longer to revert something, and allows that much more time to scrutinize the previous edit. Of course it's a pain, too. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
?? If the above was, as I suspect, a template to the effect that the vandal I reported had not been sufficiently warned, I'm glad to see another administrator thought otherwise. The account was designed for block evasion and vandalism, and has since been blocked. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that, I screwed up the template there. I also was not allowed to use those templates, so that was a stupid move on my part. My apologies. Boomer VialHolla17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, if you should feel so inclined, please watchlist Stephanie Deshpande. Several accounts appear to be invested primarily in this bio, which I think is borderline for notability. I know that most of the exhibitions and awards are non notable, but have refrained from doing a full scale excision. The mentions in magazines and unsourced claim of a single museum collection are the best assets to significance. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just a reminder that users are allowed to remove talk page warnings - it's usually seen as them acknowledging them. Personally, I wouldn't have gone straight from stage 1 to stage 4 vandalism warning with them either - you did notify them of their COI editing though, so I can't fault your efforts. It may be wiser to work through warnings methodically, unless you're certain that the vandalism is a serious issue. Best, --Ches(talk)18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, Chesnaught555, that users may remove warnings. The user in question did so, only to restore promotional and copyright violations in one swoop. That's also why I templated them as I did; their sole intention was promotional, and they vandalized the spam blacklist page to pursue that course, which seemed pretty obtuse to me as an advertising strategy, but there you have it. They were blocked; I reported them simultaneous to issuing warnings. Perfectly happy with the choices I made on this one. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure, and even if I get peeved at another editor it's never personal. I do catch unwarranted advice and warnings on a daily basis, owing mostly to editing as an IP. I often jump to level 3 and 4 warnings when they're merited--ascribe it to my having edited here for over a decade, my experience as a professional editor, and numerous other credible, though not infallible, qualities that have accrued with age. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63
Hallo, I don't want to disturb you but one question; you have read my article, and r that this article is not very relevant to my article. You wrote that, this article does not have any relevant information. What can I do to make this article more relevant for wikipedia?! What are the requirements for a relevant Wikipedia article? I am not looking for trouble, I just want to cooperate! Best regards JimmyMcPress (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but there are so many profound problems with the article you've written, that I think in its present form it should be deleted. I've explained rationale in both my edit summaries and in the maintenance templates themselves. In short, though, you've copied an article you wrote on PlusPedia. That's not a WP:RELIABLE source, nor, as far as I can tell, is anything in the article supported by an acceptable reference. There's no indication, as far as I can see, of WP:NOTABILITY. If conflict of interest is an issue, you must divulge that, per WP:COI. Best wishes, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I understand. I'm very sorry if I have wasted your time. I have long written and worked on this article. It was a long search. Do you think that there's an alternative for my little work ?! A small tip would be a great help. I would be very happy of an answer. I respect your investigation and thats why I will delete the article immediately. JimmyMcPress (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Thank you very much. I'll keep my eyes open. Who knows, maybe this guy will eventually famous. Then I can say that I wrote an article about a famous author :-) hehe. One last question: I read in this PlusPedia that the Wiki article will be be included without criteria... Are there some like the Site or Wikisites in the American Web?! JimmyMcPress (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete
Hi, regarding speedy delete I was advised that in most cases they should not be restored when removed by a third party editor. See the speedy delete section here. [10] thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Dalton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting invalid speedy deletion tags
I have deleted a few invalid speedy deletion tags and noticed that you had also deleted invalid tags by the same user or his/her socks. Thanks for this work. I placed an explanation of your edit to User:CactusWriter's page on User:Winterysteppe's page. Since I am not an administrator, I try not to meddle with other user's work or intervene unnecessarily. Here, I thought you deserved some credit. User:Winterysteppe's revert is perfectly understandable for the reason given. I might have done the same thing as an automatic response to what seemed like violation of a Wikipedia guideline. Of course, in this case, it wasn't and I thought you would like to know that someone noticed your effort here and gave you credit for it. Donner60 (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and much appreciated. Yes, it looks like someone was annoyed that their article was deleted, so they've used a few accounts to make their umbrage known. I may be out of the loop on user page guidelines, but are we really advised to leave blatant vandalism alone? 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I considered blocking you on suspicion of being the good hand of a good hand/bad hand disruptor. All those IPv6s look alike to my old eyes. (Hey, it got cold here, like in the low 70s, so I made chicken pot pies. Delicious Yankee food. No pearl onions though.) Drmies (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It makes my aging eyes hurt, too, trying to distinguish between these 57-digit IPs. Mrs. 99 is still recovering and in a cast, so I made dinner again, Blue Apron cod. It wasn't a big hit, and while I was burning pans and trying to keep track of our dogs running in and out of the house I had occasion to blow a proverbial gasket. At least the dogs are still talking to me. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Drmies, it occurs to me that if I'd allowed myself to be nominated as an admin--back in the day when there were those who proposed such ill-advised action--I'd have had the tools to block you. Not that it's ever crossed my mind. Alright, but only once or twice. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GAB, this IP editor is not allowed any more brownies (doctor's orders), and is not allowed to start another account since--well, too much smart-assing. Anytime this guy shows up, there's work to do. Now, where's that sock? I blocked one earlier today, I think. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? All those (empty) offers of Belgian ale, and lobster rolls and you're coming here to hassle me? But you're right, I do drop some real pain in the ass stuff at your doorstep, though I try to give you a few weeks' hiatus from time to time. I stopped bothering Bbb because he just ignored my messages, which is always an option. I could hear his eyes rolling all the way from Nova Scotia, or Finland. Wherever he is. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Drmies and 99. Yeah, I'm not around much these days. Who'da thunk it? But I still make the occasional guest appearance. I hope you're both having a wonderful Spring! MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM07:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, how many times have we seen this [13]? Maybe one of the reasons that I edit as an IP--besides the rationale for privacy that I've mentioned before--is that of the contrarian. So long as numerous editors make the presumption of guilt re: the motives of an IP, I'll stick with it. And I did get a kick out of this comment after I filed a report at ANI yesterday: [14]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TParis is one of my favorite admins, and so what if he's a Trump fan. Yes, I've seen that kind of comment way too often and it makes me feel the same way it makes you feel. Folks who don't write articles but just Twinkle away--why do they even need an account? What have they made that they need to set their signature on? Drmies (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, lest I forget: Discrimination against IPs is not high on anyone's scale of social injustices, but it's indicative of human nature. I confess to an extra satisfaction catching a vandal who tries to sneak by with a registered account. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been blocked, apparently by mistake. Though no explanation has been offered, I suspect this has to do with my attempts to revert defamatory vandalism at Rachel Roy, and that my efforts there have been misinterpreted and lumped with the disruptions of numerous IPs. A thoughtful review of my edits there will clarify my intent. Please revisit this, Gilliam, and have a look as well, Drmies, Widr and Materialscientist. If there's some other reason for the block, I'd appreciate a better explanation. But I'd hate to think this is a case of guilt for editing as an IP. Thanks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
99, You haven't been blocked directly but have been affected by a rather large range block. I'm not familiar with IPV6 and those range blocks and have left a note at User talk:Gilliam#Very large range block. I'm sure the good doctor or the scientist or someone else familiar with this will come by to take a look at the range quite soon. Look forward to having you back! cheers. —SpacemanSpiff10:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note, Spaceman, it's helpful. I emailed Dr, with the observation that a 48 hour vacation wasn't in any way a bad thing, but nobody likes to be unjustly marked with a criminal record. Cheers and best regards. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that a few more hours have elapsed in silence, I will share this: I was recently contacted by a reporter, whose sole interest was to sound me out on vandalism on Wikipedia. In responding, I expressed my disappointment with the site, especially regarding the continued vulnerability of biographical articles. That the shitstorm visited upon Rachel Roy lasted for something like an hour and a half is intolerable, and the foundation must do a better job at discerning ways of shutting down such disruptions and protecting articles. But I mostly pulled my punches in the interview: I write for publication, too, and didn't want to offer up some juicy quote of disaffection. Being blocked as collateral damage, however, ices my take on the value of retaining anonymity, and supports my experiences regarding the popular contempt with which IPs are held. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address your question about creating an account. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any problems with you creating an account. You have a reasonably established track record of constructive editing from this IP, and as far as I can tell there's only been one editor using this IP since last fall. OhNoitsJamieTalk13:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I withdrew that question; it was off-topic and I have edited quite productively with a registered account. My thanks to DoRD for addressing the block at Gilliam's page. As a side note, one of the many IPs I've used in this range was responsible for opening the ANI report on Neelix's redirects--I had no idea quite what I'd stumbled upon a the time, and when I shut down my access to that IP I did so in hopes of never editing here again. A long time registered account accused me of having hacked Neelix's account and planting the redirects to embarrass him. But now I remember--my real anger was over the amount of time and conversation required to take disciplinary action against an administrator, for behavior that would have prompted an immediate block on an IP account. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know it would be useless for me to try to convince you to use an account. But I'll point out that although your use of a Comcast block gives you some anonymity, it reveals more about your location than an account would. It also likely reveals your identity to anyone providing a web service that you have registered for, like Google or Facebook. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And God Bless the stroopwafel. Back in my day, if things were taking too long in the kitchen, they’d automatically bring out a basket of stroopwafels for you while you were waiting. Willondon (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can, and they're blinkin' good at it too, and I would imagine better than a brand new account like you, so stop! -- samtartalk or stalk09:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
