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 (2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C: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 (~~~~).
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! — Music1201talk00:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to 2016–17 Serbian SuperLiga: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thanks for catching the vandalism edits!Marianna251TALK20:03, 14 August 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.
Our dog IP nemesis has (unfortunately) sometimes used addresses that look like yours. It would really help if you exercised your option and registered, got an account and became an identifiable regular. We are seeing a lot of each other. It is confusing at times to other users (not just me). I appreciate your devandalizing the dog articles. Kudos. 7&6=thirteen (☎)20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get a bit confused by the similarities, too. But there's no harm in any of us taking the extra few seconds to be certain before reverting and warning other users--I used to enjoy the luxury of rollback privileges, and am voluntarily reconciled to working a bit more slowly now. Not a bad thing at all. Keep up the good work, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have a point. But it's not just about you. The other IP is persistent and appears regularly. He strikes quickly and does lots of damage. Quickly. This would really help, and it would be of little inconvenience to you. You can now be continuously signed in for 365 days. So I would ask you to give it more thought and change your mind for the greater good. But it's your choice.
So we are clear here, we are reverting at cross purposes sometimes. And I have (mistakenly) reported you to WP:AIV. Just saying that it would really be a help. 7&6=thirteen (☎)21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, and in no ways to foster ill-will, remind others that the onus is on them, as it is on me, to be circumspect in such matters. I've many times explained the rationale for editing as an IP--my history as a registered account was quite illustrious and constructive in the matter of building content rather than simply removing vandalism. That is to say, nobody here is on solid ground in imploring an IP to register; the inconveniences are greater for me than for you, but it is what I prefer for now. Until Wikipedia bans IPs from editing, please respect that. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you said too much. I have long been assisting in 'a concrete way.' The implication that I may be a sock for vandals is insulting, and has nothing to do with me. If you have any further questions, I strongly suggest you refer them to Drmies, Bbb23 or any number of associated administrators who may be familiar with me. I have, as have you, attempted to curb the 'dog' vandal, and I feel no obligation to question whether you are somehow related to him/her. We can each continue as we have, without need for you to drop by here or at other well-meaning IP's talk pages. All the best, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of him in my life. Are you still making trouble wherever you go, 99? I'm not used to running into you on a Talk page other than mine or Drmies's. Always good to see you wherever you happen to be.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bbb; always good to hear from you. If I delete this thread it's only because the presumption out of which it grew pisses me off no end. I once knew of a painter who shared the last name of an unrelated artist working in a similar place and style; he asked her to change her surname to avoid confusion. Anyway, I'm reading this with one eye while working on an article for publication with the other. For those I sign my real name. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 99. Sorry to be replying to a thread from seven months ago. I just saw some edits and thought, "hmmmmmm.... that looks like something 99 would do" so I came to investigate. Anyways, I'm amazed at the chutzpah of that artist. However, Wikipedia is a more important concern, and the title of the Wikipedia article about you is disambiguated. In order to avoid this messy situation, I'm formally asking you to change your real name. I hope all's well with you these days. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM22:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how or why requiring one IP editor to register should help us curb the vandalism of another. Anyone who reverts an edit should carefully judge an edit on its merits before they revert, and if they do, they'll quickly realize there is a world of difference. Please accept. Carry on, 99, and good luck with the article. I'll proofread it for you at the friends' rate. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I fear you'll mold my sharp American slang into something from Beowulf. It's bad enough that I can hear my editors gnashing their teeth and rolling their eyes; hearing the latter is a neat trick, by the way. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
rivaldox Regarding the message left by you on my talk page
Hi thanks for your message regarding my post on Berkeley holdings. I am a resident at Chelsea Bridge Wharf and the evidence I have is a alter form Wandsworth Council that the depots do not have planning permission (dated 2.8.16) and evidence of the resident petition about this (a link to the online petition). However it seems that I am not allowed to post either this doc or the link. If you can advise what the issue is with using these sources of evidence I would be grateful. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivaldox (talk • contribs) 10:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that this belongs in an encyclopedia--it's trivial, and doesn't appear to be supported by multiple published sources. Moreover, even if it were mentioned in a newspaper article, it's of short-term local interest, and isn't noteworthy by encyclopedic standards. I'm also concerned that you may have a dog in this fight, a WP:COI, since you added content about this twice and have admitted personal involvement. This is appropriate for a blog or an activist website, but probably not here. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. Yes I have a 'dog in this fight' I am a resident. That doesn't change the fact that the council have found the depots to be in violation of planning law. You seem to have a naive view of what 'facts' are and I am afraid that you have a dog in this fight since there is not the slightest hint of criticism of Berkeley Homes on this page despite the fact that many of their developments are controversial and have often been strongly opposed locally. You are in effect acting as a censor on behalf of Berkeley Homes and that is unacceptable and against the spirit of Wikipedia. I will challenge this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivaldox (talk • contribs) 08:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is almost nothing in that article that belongs, even after your radical cuts. I will be snipping away some more and trying to add some reasonably referenced content. Re your request at RPP, I only see one school and no school districts in Idaho and see no relation at all to the article referenced here. Skyline will be getting some attention from me too. IP editors are more than welcome at Wikiproject Schools. Wanna join? I can promise you we won't have a picnic nor will you get a cool tshirt, but you do not ever have to wear a silly hat! John from Idegon (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A favor? Please drop a note on my talk with the names of the district's so I can recreate them right? Unless you see a range relationship with the IPs, Harbor looks like typical private/charter school promo to me. They're up my butt readding as fast as I can revert. Not too worried about it tho as some of what they're adding is blatantly BLP violating. John from Idegon (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that revert I did earlier. I didn't realize the content was copyrighted, and, usually, section blanking is just that: section blanking. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, Gestrid, and I know what happened. Everyone needs to take an extra couple of seconds to examine such edits before reverting and templating. Doing so has calmed my trigger finger on many occasions. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent Vandalizing
Hi there, I wanted to apologize. I made an edit awhile ago, but other students sharing the address kept messing with it, and I stopped trying. I just got back on and saw all the warnings being reported. I'm sorry for who ever is doing this. I'm just going to get a private account, and revert any other vandalization I spot on Idaho related pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.245.189 (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been given food and drinks... so how about a cute little kitten!
Thank you for undoing vandalism on my talk page by a certain blocked user, and for your kind sentiments about me on their talk page. Hope you have a wonderful day! Kind regards,
Hi, I apologize for rolling you back since you have now stated your rationale for doing so, but please include that reasoning in your edit summary before blanking out copious amounts of text. Thank you. smileguy91talk - contribs17:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, but my exasperation is merited. I furnished detailed edit summaries, citing the sources of the violations, a few minutes earlier. As someone who's reverted vandalism here for over a decade, I tire of reminding other editors the obvious--take the few extra second before misusing rollback technology. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't block in good conscience as @GeorgeWashingtonDoane: has made no edits since your warning
I can't semi-protect as the account will become autoconfirmed tomorrow and can just override the protection
I don't want to full-protect as that's cracking a sledgehammer with a nut.
In the meantime, I'm going through the article's revision and wiping out all the obvious copyvios. I hope that will get the message through; if not, we can block then. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For all your good work, (and stubborn refusal to create an account)
The Eastern pygmy possum-shaped barnstar
For all your ongoing good work, (and stubborn refusal to create an account) I award you this, The Eastern pygmy possum-shaped barnstar. You thoroughly deserve it.
So about that Bruce guy who keeps writing BeeGee tour articles... so I've sent him instructions on how to better format his pages and no response, but he keeps on editing things incorrectly. what's the next step? --Jennica✿ / talk14:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, which is why I brought this to ANI; except for your welcome input, that move was met with silence. When a WP:SPA pops up and posts problematic articles en masse and refuses to answer or engage, I usually think they've been here before and are just going to bulldoze until someone stops them. I'm thinking about dropping a note to an administrator about this (Drmies, duck! The account in question is [3]). Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know a lot of about the sockpuppetry stuff? I've never gone through with an investigation but I have come across someone who is mucking up many articles [I am working my way through their history and fixing stuff], specifically on these 2 articles: Altan and Malicorne. I am just wondering about a 2nd opinion because I'm pretty unfamiliar. the two users in question are both listed here - i don't want to tag their names or anything, just yet. but French and "Hurlu_____" both share a "talent" for the writing style in those articles and not leaving summaries except when they make a mistake, then they type "Oops!". And Hurlu already has a sockpuppet (Lurulu) -- so why does he still have an account? Like I said, I'm just wondering if I should pursue this and if you don't have any input, that's okay :) I am just tired of seeing their bulldozing. --Jennica✿ / talk16:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that those two accounts are the same--one edits pretty exclusively the Malicorne article, the other has a much wider range--but the relationship of the one account to Hurlu is curious, and I'm not sure why they haven't been blocked. If these accounts are persistently adding unsourced or otherwise unacceptable content, you can request page protection or other administrative action. I'll take a look later... 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd swing by and tell you that Hurlu is blocked indefinitely. The person who blocked him said it was very unusual he evaded a block in the 4 years he remade his account. --Jennica✿ / talk14:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's back and he's still editing articles! I'm surprised his BeeGees tour articles weren't deleted. They remain intact.. and now he's doing Jackson Five articles haha --Jennica✿ / talk02:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I thought that would be against a rule or something. He is basically spamming with articles and listening to nobody - a steamroller editor. --Jennica✿ / talk17:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not spamming unless they're obviously promoting a product or an idea. There are two issues--refusal to engage discussion and work collaboratively, and creation of unsourced articles, with the presumption, or lack of concern at all, that other editors will clean up after them by supplying references. This is why I opened a thread at ANI a few weeks ago, to no avail. Feel free to reintroduce discussion there, since the issues continue unabated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Maybe there's something else. Maybe something from WP:COMPETENCE but maybe eventually: WP:ROPE. I've seen people get blocked for having so many deleted articles - man, Wiki needs tighter rules regarding newbies lol --Jennica✿ / talk05:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
November 2016
Hello 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Moon Seung-Jun. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually 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. Adam9007 (talk) 18:46, 28 November 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.
Thank you, Adam9007. I was quick to nominate, in part because I saw the article had already been speedy deleted recently, and because the infobox in the second version looked none too promising. I gathered, given the thousands of bios I'd seen before, as well as my experience as a writer and editor on and off Wikipedia, that this didn't have traction. Nonetheless you're correct, and make a proper distinction between those articles that merit rapid dispatch, and those that cause no harm in being gifted some extra time. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help today
I wish the thank button worked for IPs. Thanks for keeping an eye on that Tamil article. Take care! and create an account for crying out loud so I can thank youPatient Zerotalk13:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know where to contact you, but I saw that you think I'm vandalizing, but I'm not! Here in Italy the movie is also known as Florence. It's not vandalizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolitaslies (talk • contribs) 21:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user, please note that I was not trying to add any ad to article - it was added by user
(cur | prev) 01:47, 20 February 2016 Bamyers99 (talk | contribs) . . (4,978 bytes) (-97) . . (rm phone number and email address) (undo)
I was trying to remove this as well as restore lost data that this user deleted without reason. I also added references to added material and removed advertising of other user, it is not mine (just intermidiate step in restoring data). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.92.129.144 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This little mammal placed here to remind you of the fate of those mammals less fortunate than us. Please spare a thought for the edit warriors, the vandals, the POV fighters, the BLP violators, the link spammers, and pray that they may see the error of their ways.
Thank you so, Drmies. For the record, I love not only immature cats, but all the miscreants who come to Wikipedia for nefarious ends. Like kittens who pee on the living room rug, it's their misguided activities I have no patience for. Of course, animals have an excuse. Cheers, always, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year to you, too! When I attempted to post speedy templates at two user pages this morning, one for spamming and the other as a copyright violation, my edits were rejected with a banner informing me that unregistered accounts could not edit the user pages of registered users. So that's that. This would be my second favorite change, behind the decision to retire the 'longterm' warning template. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching the nonsense and sorry that I didn't realize quick enough what you were doing. I thought it was one of my many sock fans who've been reverting me over the past few days. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff09:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another avatar, since wifi was briefly lost out here after the last snowstorm. Must move to a place where there's a decent watering hole within walking distance. Hmm, doesn't Drmies own a copy of the Worldwide Atlas of Places to Drink Astoundingly Esoteric Ales? 2601:188:1:AEA0:38D2:7218:4D4F:2BC5 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We were last there many years ago during Thanksgiving, which we celebrated by cooking two chickens for a festive group. Not a decent turkey to be found in Hampstead. It rained, coldly. And when we sought late night guidance from a railroad employee at the tube, his accent was so thick we didn't have a clue where to catch the train. We loved it. 2601:188:1:AEA0:38D2:7218:4D4F:2BC5 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where we were. It was night, we followed directions to the appropriate flat, then returned to the hotel at evening's end. I know Hampstead better from Constable's paintings than personal experience, and something tells me it's not quite the same. 2601:188:1:AEA0:38D2:7218:4D4F:2BC5 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talk to me. How did my edits violate wikipedia's policy on living persons? The insertion of the word "claims" improves the article's veracity because according to the link provided, the information is based on her claims. Tamadrum313 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the inappropriate warning template. My reaction on seeing the diff was that bad-faith NPOV violations were being introduced, but I see now that there's something of an ongoing edit war with regard to that content. Thank you for the friendly suggestion to take a closer look. – Juliancolton | Talk02:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy deletion nomination of Coastal and offshore rowing
Hello 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Coastal and offshore rowing as constituting unambiguous advertising or promotion under CSD G11. That criterion did not apply because while the page did have some promotional sounding text, it was far from "exclusively promotional", nor would it need to be "fundamentally rewritten" to become encyclopaedic. Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Adam9007, and thank you for your note. I do think it requires extensive editing, and would indeed require fundamental revision to be encyclopaedic in form. In its entirety the article is a promotional brochure on behalf of the pleasures of rowing; in its parts it's largely a compilation of advertising prose for numerous non notable entities. These qualities have been characteristic since its inception. I've looked at it with an eye to removing the promotional bits, and suspect that what will remain will be largely unsourced. That's why I think it's a fairly lost cause. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cheezus, I scan the article and it makes my bones hurt. Multiple passages begin by extolling the resurgent popularity of the sport, with 'talented athletes' , a 'growing number' of participants, where 'competition thrives', allowing 'rowers of all ages to enjoy camaraderie.' Perhaps I will try to have a go at it. It won't be pretty. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Drmies, when you have time, can you check the criticisms section of Byron Katie? It was added several years ago by someone wishing to 'even out' the article's promotional tone, but I don't see a reliable source, only blogs and forums, and it makes one queasy from a WP:BLP standpoint. I'd remove the whole thing, but several accounts have tried that over time and each has been swiftly reverted.
The second, and much less simple challenge, is a school article, Ohio University, a complex weaving of institutional history and unsourced promotional content. This appears to have a legacy of COI edits. One doesn't have a clue where to begin. Thanks for any help you can provide. Cheers from 99, 2601:188:1:AEA0:8949:EA87:45B1:DF70 (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, 2601:188:1:AEA0:8949:EA87:45B1:DF70. Cheers! Well: I followed more or less in your footseps, and removed the section. That kind of material would need far far better sourcing than it had (blogs, etc)- I expect further reinsertion will result in a request for admin intervention, eh? Anyway- you're right- that's easy compared to universities. I swear they are the worst self-promoters we have here. I mean, no one cares about the bloke trying to push his Islamabad brothel- G11 for him- but university alumni are legion :D O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi.15:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't thank IP users, so great job spotting the repost on Christina July Kim. I knew something was fishy with the persondata template that hasn't been used since 2015 and I had a feeling it was a reposted article, but I wasn't sure. Great catch. Pishcal (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Dan Koehl. I noticed that in this edit to Milton, Queensland, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, there really was no need for any of this. The content was awful and promotional and was rightly removed--claiming that the removal was unexplained is appealing to an alternative fact. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, 99. Yes, I'm a bit sleepy after a late-night class, and my poor daughter has a lot of homework to get through. I wish Duke had the decency to play a game when I need to have something to watch on TV. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. I think what I'm running into are registered accounts that are getting sloppy; they see an IP removing content and don't take five seconds to read either the content or the edit summaries. As a registered I had and used rollback, and know that these tools are too easy to inadvertently misuse. That's understood. What disappoints me is that ostensibly constructive accounts (see the two instances above) are loath to respond or take responsibility. Thanks so much for helping out at the article, and in general. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm with you, but it is what it is. Editors are more careless when looking at IP (or redlinked editor) edits. We need solutions to curb that carelessness. --NeilNtalk to me15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Drmies and any other learned stalkers who have some helpful thoughts. I've come across several related and likely COI articles about record producers: Mark Crew, Braque (Music Producer) and Jarrad Rogers. Probably the first question, given that the articles are poorly sourced and deal mostly with the music and performers, rather than the producers, is whether any of these are demonstrably notable. If so, then there's copy editing to be done, especially on the Rogers piece. Thanks for any input. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much--will hold off on the beer until tomorrow. Ate too much tonight already. Have a registered account, wrote lots of articles, had a lot of fun. Now only write for publication, and come here to revert vandalism and spam. Love even the vandals and promoters, just aren't going to give them a free pass to pollute here. I'm quite sure the good admins don't mind seeing the occasional report that isn't cookie-cut; I've been here for a dozen years. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, NeilN, I get tired of typing the same descriptions after a few thousand times. But 'pithy' gives me too much credit. 'Tired' is more accurate. And I do hope that occasionally I lighten things a touch here and there. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A brownie for you!
Thanks for reverting vandalism. I'd normally be lazy and click a "thanks" link, but since you won't use your registered account, I have to get creative. "Thanks!" 78.26(spin me / revolutions)15:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, NeilN and Drmies, I've started to de-puff this article, which has been owned by the university's press department for a while. I'm not sure how much we need in terms of listing course programs, so your insight will be appreciated. At this point clean-up appears manageable. Thanks for any wisdom you may provide. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. Personally I doubt we need any of it. If it was sourced to secondary material that might suggest they were notable enough courses to stay. But they ain't, only to their own site. And as per WP: NOT- guide/directory- atm all they're doing is promotion. I guess that's the press department's job ;) but as you say, now time for a change in ownership! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.14:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good nose :) It's received some coverage, certainly. I'd say we can lose almost everything after 'History'. With perhaps a reference to the festival, which might be the only thing notable and not completely promotional there. Via its own article, Virasat (festival) it has a couple of sources. Mind you that's clearly just a dove-tailing advert for this article. Frankly, this is what WP:NUKE is for. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.08:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to 'have a look' sooner? The reason I didn't just dive in and do it immediately is because, frankly, you're the experienced editor here, and I would look like I was stealing thunder. Or something like that. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.12:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for reverting the repeated addition of spamlinks there, well done. But you really should get yourself a registered account... - Tom | Thomas.W talk11:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
most of this is in no way vandalism
You might want to look a bit closer at what you revert as vandalism. With your revert [13] you forced an image size, restored an invalid webpage, and removed a maintenance tag. Meters (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Some of them appear to be solely participiating in youth / juniour / cadet leagues, so, unless they are notable for something else (GNG-proof), I doubt they are notable enough to pass NSPORT (which is usually top rank I believe?). The odd thing, I suppose, is the speed at which they are tagged- two or three a minute in some cases!- so i wonder how they could have looked at the sources to any degree. Although since some don't seem to have any, perhaps that answers that. All in all, I doubt they would have much chance at AfD. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.15:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense :) your edits were far more profitable. I was just letting you know, you've got about 28 'misters' to get rid of :p
I will say I'm kind out of my comfort zone here- I just don't really know enough about our notability standards from lawyers (or legal cases- see WER v REW!) He clearly is a bit of a big-shot- but to what extent is he 'inheriting' notability from those cases? I'm nt sre we have a WP:NLEGAL do we? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.14:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment I'm assuming notability is there, and am just looking at all the embroidery that can be removed. I think Drmies will have a good eye to determine whether there's a notability issue, but at a glance I think the awards and coverage may be enough. I'm stepping away from it for a bit. Cheers! 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm: I didn't mean lose the article- but those sections about 'notable cases' (I notice he supposedly hasn't lost any notable cases!)- are they really about him, or the case itself? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.14:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, the Chevy Cruze litigation section I removed. He wasn't mentioned in the source, and is one of numerous lawyers involved in the suit. This could be added to a broader 'notable cases' section with a single sentence, if that. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Phew. That was exhausting. I just condensed most of the notable cases for undue weight - we don't really need all the background, just the parts that are notable and involve Hilliard. Let me know if I removed too much! Garchy (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up! I just reported the user - they have been given enough warnings about COI and their editing that reverting you and continuing their mission pretty much affirms their SPA status. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that didn't go anywhere. I was under the impression that SPA accounts can be handled as vandalism, but I was told ANI is the best option. In that case we'll want to wait to see if the IP reverts again! Garchy (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you most likely have some talk page stalkers by now - I came across this gem that could use some work, but I don't have a chance to get to it for a few days. Anyone want to take a gander? Garchy (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. A lot of it appeared to have been copyright violation. By the way, Garchy, because I live in the country, my internet connection is frequently interrupted, and I'm often reincarnated under other similar IPs. But this appears to have become a home port and small watering hole, so drop in at your convenience. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work, it looks great! Good to have an open invitation, I'm sure I'll be using this page more often :) Garchy (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion for Henry Wally Laster
You nominated and deleted my page called Henry Wally Laster. It was properly cited, referenced, and indexed. Yet you still deleted it for no reason. I want the page reinstated and locked so only I can edit it. Please comply with this urgent request.
LeakySponge (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a Db-9 CSD onto the page (which the editor cannot remove), so let's see if that does the trick. I hope Db-9 was the correct one, A-7 didn't seem to fit... Garchy (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the redirect was originally the way to go; even if they keep removing it- that's edit-warring / WP:DE, and eventually the redirect will stand, with or without the SPA. Unfortunately I don't think the A9 will last: one of the criterion is that '...where no artists have an article.' Now, I note that that currently also has a speedy on it- whiiiich I'm tempted to remove as it might just be making a claim of significance, if not notabilty :) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi.18:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually swapped the DB-9 out for an A-7 for that reason. I figured the best way to avoid even having to bring up edit warring with the user (which could end up in mediation) was to slap a speedy on it, and hopefully curb a recreation of the page (either through a protected redirect or creation protection). Just my thought! Garchy (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Andes. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63) is used to identify you instead.
Thanks for the call. Curiouser and curiouser! -it's an odd one, as you say. I've commented at the AfD; if it's going to be deleted, it should be done so properly. — O Fortuna velut luna...03:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I just went to AIV to report and found that you had already done so, much appreciated. I too wasn't sure if ANI was the more appropriate venue, but will wait and see. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, NeilN! Only after the fact did I notice that further reversion was needed, and I would have had to enter my social security and mother's maiden name to make a second revision. So I slunk away in Wiki shame. Thanks for following up. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually looking at this guy earlier. I didn't try to put together an WP:ANEW well...mainly because I had too many tabs open and was actively trying to close some. It doesn't look like they've technically passed 3RR, but not for lack of trying, and the fact that they are carrying on a cross-article edit war kindof makes the point moot. That they're changing the spelling in an article to be contrary to the spelling even of the same word in the article title...starts to look a little bit CIR. TimothyJosephWood17:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see NeilN is on the case, otherwise I'd suggest ANI for this kind of broad disruption, although I note they haven't edited in 14 hours now. Of course Neil may still prefer it taken there. Willing to do the honours if necessary, just ping. — O Fortuna velut luna...17:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crappy custom crop on MSPaint, assign transparent layer and arrange in Power Point, screen shot back to paint and save. By which I mean I really need to reinstall GIMP. TimothyJosephWood17:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well they're definitely ignoring your COI warning. I've got half a mind to blank their indiscriminate and unsourced resume and see if that elicits a reaction. TimothyJosephWood14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you. If he barrels ahead I'm inclined to take this to ANI rather than the COI board, given his long term history and self-spamming of multiple articles. But I wanted to solicit some thoughts and assistance first. Best, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll see if this gets their attention. It's a bit pointy I'll admit, but I would have done the same to any bio I came across, actually probably more given the exceptionally weak sourcing currently in the article. TimothyJosephWood14:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exceptionally pointy. I'm often hesitant to clear-cut for several reasons; coming from an IP, such removals are sometimes mistaken for vandalism, and there's actually a part of me that feels bad about removing reference to an artist's life's work--that reveals too much about my own background. But I chafe at the addition of non-notable creations to all the other articles. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, most of the time I try to pay more attention to the edit summary rather than the account/IP. If an IP with only one edit cites WP:ALPHABETSOUP in their edit summary, then it's probably a good bet that it's a fairly experienced anonymous editor, or a logged out registered editor, well...that or an obvious sock if their actual edit doesn't have anything to do with the policy they cite. Can't say other's would give the same consideration though, but they should.
There's actually very little on the project as maliciously satisfying as seeing a user upbraid an IP only to find out that it was a logged-out 15-year veteran admin. TimothyJosephWood14:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. But I can't abet a well-intentioned inflation of my resume: I've edited for a dozen years, very productively as a registered account for the first six or eight. And though long ago two admins offered to nominate me to be an administrator, I declined. The vetting process appeared more stringent than that which several presidential cabinet appointees were made to endure. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've said many times that it would probably benefit the project if it were both easier to mop folks, and to demop them (without requiring nearly a human rights violation to do it). For my own part, I edited as an IP for about five years, although not in any way that is forward facing to the community in a way that counter vandalism is.
(Late responding to this specific line) Timothyjosephwood, now I recall the time I stumbled across Neelix's mass indiscretions, thousands of odd and mostly puerile redirects [16]. I was astounded by how much conversation was necessary before de-mopping and a block were instituted, and during discussion one conspiracy-minded account went after me in the belief that I'd hacked Neelix and was responsible for the edits. 2601:188:1:AEA0:DD8E:74CD:FBC3:49C8 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I would be careful making generalizations from the whole Neelix thing. That was a pretty exceptional circumstance. But there are definitely sitting admins that have a habit of pushing the line as far as behavior goes (not just reasonable disagreements on interpretation of policy, but things like repeatedly riding the line of WP:3RR and being wholly uncivil), and they're...individually well aware of my opinion of their actions. TimothyJosephWood16:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't have a sys without a sysop, but I think a lot of the reason that the community (myself included) is so reluctant to support RfAs is because we all know the if successful, the editor can royally screw things up, even at times repeatedly and wantonly, without likely facing serious consequences. Of course the converse is true also: we're reluctant to desysop anyone if we can avoid it, because we can't really remember the last time the "gained" line was bigger than the "lost" line on the administrator newsletter, and we need all the people we can find with as many buttons as they can get. TimothyJosephWood17:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I've requested revision deletion of literally every version of the Brown article except the current one, because every single revision is a copyright violation. TimothyJosephWood15:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe someone else wants to weigh in, but looking through their other edits, they're definitely spam, but they're also pretty much spam added to lists of spam, so I'm not really sure about mass reverting them. TimothyJosephWood17:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I do agree with you. But I have serious doubts that they would fly at AfD. I've found that I have a bit stricter interpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE than much of the community. The catch-22 there if that a list isn't terribly long, then it's hard to argue that it's indiscriminate, but the longer it gets, the more loath the community is to actually delete the effort put into it. TimothyJosephWood21:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to watch how I phrase things--I was speaking too loosely, and wasn't suggesting you or anyone start an AfD. My thinking is that the content of such lists be limited to works that already have their own stand alone articles, but suspect that proposal won't fly. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes editing Wikipedia also tends to "convey a deep understanding of oppression and the mechanisms at work in dominant ideology"... sometimes. TimothyJosephWood12:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... well that one's a nail biter. Doesn't obviously qualify for speedy deletion, and unsurprisingly, most of the sources are in German. I'm not a big fan of tagging and carrying on, but subjects closely related to non-English languages are unfortunately one of the big areas where that's likely the only real option. TimothyJosephWood12:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd add that sometimes it's actually useful (and not just lazy) to add wikiproject banners without assessing the article for quality and importance, because it may mean that a gnome is likely to eventually come by and do it, and hopefully as an an active member of that project, they're in a better position to evaluate it, and either improve or nominate for deletion with a stronger argument than we've got right now. TimothyJosephWood12:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not great- local news, passing mentions. I've PRODded it as non-notable and promy, but I don't expect it to last. The only real claim of significance is that of playing all over Europe; and, frankly, for a music ensemble, that's not significant at all. It's what they do- go where the audiednces are. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis12:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies and NeilN, I didn't realize when first following up on JJMC89's edits there, just how far back this goes. DBManley (talk·contribs) has been editing the article since 2013, and received a copyright violation warning for another article that same year--the multiple assurances he's made to cease such edits may be taken with a grain of salt. The push/pull to add redlink alumni appears to go back to that year. Last night I asked for a block at AIV, but this may be a more complex piece of work, and I'm wondering if either of you have the time to look at this (and, God forbid, the editor's broader edit history), or if you recommend a report be entered at ANI. This is a longterm COI and promotional problem; some of the promo content I extracted last night was added by him years ago. Thanks for any thoughts. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even crazy about the preceding sentence, ending with is a nationally ranked first-tier law school, sourced to the school's website. All major university articles on Wikipedia are vulnerable to this sort of organized public relations by the schools and their advocates. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the usual trusted talk page watchers, this is the second attempt by a well-meaning college student to pass off a thesis/essay as an encyclopedia article, as part of a school project. I redirected the first attempt and prodded this one. More eyes will be appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you’ve sure learned a lot! however, consider making an account as this is an IP address and all the people in your town will see this. However, it's up to you whether or not to remain anonymous The garmine (talk)03:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent Changes to Catlett, Virgina
Could you please tell me what material I did not properly cite? I am editing this page as an assignment for a college course, and would like to cite all of my information properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bailey m13 (talk • contribs)
More specifically: Today, Catlett, Virginia is a very small town that is predominantly made up of woodland areas and farmland. It is a very rural area with beautiful vistas, and easy access to metropolitan areas thanks to Route 28 which runs through its center. Catlett has been able to avoid the encroaching suburbs and has been able to maintain its quiet, small town feel throughout the early 2000s thanks to pushback against developers from the local population who do not want to see their rural town overrun by people and housing developments. Although they have been able to avoid mass commercialization for the most part, Catlett is inhabited by two banks, The Fauquier Bank and a BB&T. In addition, a Dollar General has recently been erected in the center of town.
Catlett's residents have been able to hang on to their Southern roots which is very obvious in their friendly nature and their "down-home" demeanor. It is not out of the ordinary for Catlett's residents to welcome visitors with a passing 'Hello' or a wave while passing on the road. Hunting is also a huge part of the resident's lives. Do not be surprised if you hear gunshots ringing through the woods on a daily basis. The residents of Catlett do not identify as residents of the region considered as Northern Virginia (NOVA), but feel as though they are the buffer between NOVA and the rest of southern Virginia.
"Templating this IP will likely also cause administrators to get interested in your editing." It seems unusual to warn of WP:BOOMERANG on a user talk page. Is it basically a way of warning, "Hey, watch out, this user has powerful friends" or has there been a history of people with sketchy editing patterns templating here?
This was my father's room. My father taught me many things here - he taught me in this room... ;)
Hi St. claires fire. Some editors are not as careful as they should be when examining edits from IP editors. If you're templating the person using this IP for vandalism, disruption, etc. (as has happened in the past), that's a good sign you're not watching what you're doing. It's likely we'll be checking that your editing is not driving good IP editors away. --NeilNtalk to me21:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quickie, I noticed you speedied this then changed your mind, so I had a mid-air collision. I got out my sticks of dynamite and a couple of news sources and re-did it. I've advised the subject (assuming it is her, it could simply be a fan) to give me a nudge if I've made any factual errors. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see you've not unreasonably just dropped a speedy deletion template onto a very newly-created article attempt by User:JaySmith2022 on Steve Cooke (Quizmaster). Because I hate discouraging brand new editors - and I think this one doesn't appreciate that working on an article (especially with cut/paste) in mainspace is going to attract a lot of attention, you'll see I had, just a few minutes before, left some helpful feedback on their talk page, suggesting they worked in their sandbox, or used AfC.
Even whilst drafting this to you, I now see the page has been blanked. Is there any chance you or @Oshwah: could retrieve their work, and cut/paste it into their Sandbox for them, please. Having worked in Editathons with brand new users, I know how utterly demoralising it can be when they unknowingly break the rules, and it's a shame to lose potential new editors if their work gets deleted.
D*mn. And again, whilst still drafting this, I now see a few minutes later that their indiscretions have resulted in a permanent block by @Widr: for disruptive editing. Whilst it may look like this, I was actually doing recent change patrols and dropped by to help, and was monitoring their edits and was seeing a genuine new editor adding text (albeit in the wrong place to work on) and trying to create a new page (OK, totally in the wrong manner). Can we give this editor a break, please, and unblock and attempt to guide them into the right way of working? I'm happy to guide them if we can get their work pasted into their sandbox - and you guys can watch and re-block if your conclusions turn out to be different from mine? If we slap people down who make mistakes like this too soon, we really will drive new helpers away. And that'd be a real shame, I think. Cheers all. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nick Moyes. Their creation of the Steve Cooke article was a blatant copyright violation, for which warnings were given. They proceeded to remove the speedy deletion template four or five times before the article was deleted. Moreover, the account made multiple WP:BLP violation edits to another article, claiming an unsourced death. I'm not an administrator, so I can neither block nor unblock an editor. Did you not follow their edits, nor read the warnings at their talk page? This was a clearly disruptive account. There are better examples of new users who merit encouragement. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, for your speedy replies. Apols for my slow response - have just going through past edit histories to see if I was mistakenly supporting the 'wrong guy'. I undoubtedly would have been had User:JaySmith2022 been identical to User:176.35.123.149 who has just a short moment ago also been blocked by User:Widr. I have no way of knowing, though I'd be interested to find out. The vandalistic death date was certainly made by the anonymous IP address, not the named user, and it just looked to me like a new user who was trying to correct the mismatch between already vandalised Infobox and the article text, and making a bit of a hash of it. If they were the same users, then you folks made the right call, and me the wrong one. You'll see I reached out on the users talk page before all but the first gentle warning about uncited changes, mainly made by the IP address. The speedy delete and blocks were laid down in rapid succession afterwards. It took me that 10 minutes to put together my text, in which time all those things happened. Anyway, I've spent enough time on this not to want to worry about making a new article - just trying to assume good faith on behalf of what I saw as a novice doing it all wrong. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, and much appreciated. It rarely bodes well assuming good faith when a new account posts an inappropriate article and their sole remedy, once warned, is to persistently remove templates. And why, in their maiden edits, would they choose to spruce up a spurious death claim? That would be a new one on me. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I was undoing my edit yesterday because I wanted my edit summary to become even better by correcting an error in my edit summary. 69.122.209.26 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I think Boing was being nice with that soft block on the Management account: I'd probably have hard-blocked it. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been preoccupied lately, and only just saw this now. A bit late and gratuitously, I answered the IP's request to edit the article with the usual warning. But I do think they ought to be blocked, too, and perhaps the article ought to be locked. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. i've had a gnaw at it and I see JJJMC99 has too, so it looks slightly more realistic now :) have a grand weekend! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis
Drmies, NeilN, Widr, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, JJMC89, I'm going away for the week, and am disinclined to enter into the edit warring on multiple related articles, so I'm asking for more eyes on these. In order to cover the articles of concern, it's almost easier to link to the involved accounts, some of which are temporarily blocked. There may be more active meat or socks: Habar Awal king (talk·contribs): 81.105.190.61 (talk·contribs); Ciiseciise007 (talk·contribs). See also my edits of May 19 [22]. Lots of cross-editing, removing sourced content and adding unsourced, with apparent ethnic/national agendas. This could go to ANI or SPI, require multiple article protections, blocks, or wherever. It's a mare's nest of Somalian topics, and may be too complicated to deal with easily or effectively. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. I'm off to Maine, ostensibly to paint, but the good weather of last week will be giving way to nothing but rain. At least there's lobster. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(writing from Maine) Could someone at least look at the 81 IP for block evasion? Since this hasn't fielded a response, when I return to civilization I'll file an ANI on this. 72.73.117.182 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took an ax to it. I'm not sure that someone won't revert me either. No objections if someone wants to rewrite it instead. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
_by_Ron.jpg)
