User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:58, 26 February 2018

READ THIS BEFORE TEMPLATING

Make sure you've examined this IP's edits and edit summaries carefully before templating. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

Contributing to Wikipedia|Tutorial]]
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
Simplified Manual of Style

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 a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. 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 (~~~~).

Happy editing! CASSIOPEIA (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Drmies, NeilN, Softlavender, TonyBallioni, Cullen328 and friends, I appreciate your thoughts here [1], and will return later, when I have time to respond at greater length. Very best, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, NeilN, Softlavender, TonyBallioni, Cullen328, I'm adding here because Drmies' page is protected. Feel free to copy this to the thread there, though my intent is neither to prolong nor aggravate the discussion. Here are two cents, upon some reflection. As you likely know, the template to which I objected, and which hastened my departure, was the latest in a continuing string of largely gratuitous accretions to my IP talk pages. Received in that spirit, it seemed like more than enough. We all know that when someone walks away--or threatens to--from a longtime interest, the leaving is rarely precipitated by a single incident, nor are the contributing events confined to the immediate environment. In other words, Thewolfchild doesn't shoulder fault proportionate to my reaction. They just supplied the last bit of tinder.

But it is tinder. Unless an IP has engaged in systematically disruptive behavior, the placing of a location template that specifies an IP's town (this computer is private, and has no relevance to civic business) is for the most part neither constructive nor innocuous. If there's a good purpose for it, other than making the user of the IP squirm, it escapes me. For this reason, I encourage administrators to discuss tightening the guidelines re: the public sharing of such information. Years ago I was made familiar with the term 'soft mugging', referring to an especially aggressive form of New York City panhandling; this feels like a 'soft outing.' As far as I can tell, no thought was given to placing the template here, other than my having reverted vandalism by this account [2]. Twc then posted to the blocked IP [3], [4], and soon thereafter, here [5]. So it's possible to conclude that to some (many?) editors, all IPs look alike, and ought to be similarly identified.

Given a long history here, it's hard to imagine I won't return. But perhaps a decent hiatus is very much in order. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "99" (I believe you are identified as such?), first off, let me say that I hope you do return. From the reactions of some of the very experienced editors here, it appears you have been a very good contributer. However,I must ask, if your privacy is so important to you, why don't you register an account? You are choosing to have your IP very prominently displayed with every. single. edit. you make. Even if there were to be some kind of limitation imposed on the shared-ip template, the simple fact is there are numerous websites that provide geo-locating for IP addresses. As long as you allow people to know your IP, there will always be a way of finding out where you live and what ISP you use at the very least. With an account, no one can learn anything about you, except what you want them to know. It's unfortunate that template caused you such distress, that certainly was not my intent. I believe there is a benefit to this template, as I explained earlier. That said, I can appreciate wanting to protect your privacy, and while I do hope you continue contributing, I also hope you consider registering an account. Not only will it protect your IP address and negate the shared-ip telplate, it should also lead to fewer instances of other the other types of templates you mentioned that appear to have been aggravating for you. Anyway, this is now longer than I originally intended, so I'll just say, in short; I hope you stay and I hope you get an account. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this so wasn't the time for a lengthy explanation of why I ought to register. Nor an occasion to tell me how easy it is to find out where I live. It was an opportunity to acknowledge that templating this account wasn't necessary, served no constructive purpose, and that the tools editors are given come with the expectation that they'll be used with informed discernment. Please don't comment here again. There's a thread at Drmies' page. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I'm kind of bluffing with all this beer, cause I wish I could still drink like a young man, haha. All the best to you and yours! Drmies (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thank you. I couldn't drink like a young man when I was a young man. But I do like the occasional Scotch. And ale. And martini. And, well, you get the scenario. With much cheer, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward . . .

I look forward to your return after you have taken some time off. And if I can be of assistance when you return, please let me know. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cullen328. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar

"I demand that you assassinate me, for I too am a virtuous man"

...is possibly a slight exageration, but you get my drift :D

All the best! SerialNumber54129 13:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Serial Number 54129. Wishing you much cheer this season. Drop in anytime, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...when I've learned to spell exaggeration, of course. D'oh! SerialNumber54129 16:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No points off for spelling. I figure it's usually the result of quick typing, sloppy copy editing, and in my case, an irritable keyboard. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Cunningham Scharper

Hi fellow editors, this bio has been subject to promotional, unsourced edits for several years. Since I'm attempting to have less involvement here, maybe someone else can check this out. The most recent additions were, initially, copyright violations, and have been re-posted with quotation marks. Still, are they more than promotional blurbs, and is the critic notable enough that this merits inclusion? After this, the existential question is whether the subject is notable. If so, there may need to be article protection or some user blocks. Drmies, you helped out with this before. Thanks for any additional thoughts, and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without solid reviews in reliable sources, no, not notable, neither per NARTIST or NPROF... Drmies (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Dr. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that Yngvadottir, who sometimes keeps an eye on my extravaganzas, has done some positive work on that article. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a belated thank you, Drmies, for this block [6]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure--community consensus. Well, not really "pleasure", since blocking really isn't that much fun, but you know. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And since when was your duty expected to be fun, Sir? Begad'!!! -actually though it saved everyone a helluva lot of trouble Drmies, and, by extension, continues to do so. I also thank you for it. Cheers! SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed some more puff at Montini Catholic High School. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Freeman (historian)

Hello friends, this is another BLP undergoing recent tribulations, the push and pull of criticism and praise. On the one hand, I'm concerned that there's an interest in adding excessive criticism, particularly with respect to one book by the author; see also The Closing of the Western Mind for same. On the other, a new editor is trying to add passages from his own blog in defense--I've removed these twice now, and believe that there may be copyright infringement issues, too. More eyes are needed, and I suspect Drmies will have a good take on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, do we need the same list of criticisms at both the bio and the article about the book? It's beginning to look WP:UNDUE. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that if it's a critique of the book it should be there, and if it's a critique of the historian it should be at the biography. Some is at both locations: see here. Prose that is not highlighted appears on both pages. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Shall we remove it from the bio? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has really piled it on in both places. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost his sole activity on this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some fixies and will watch-list for a while. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. I'll even overlook use of the word fixies. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a "word" in the loosest sense. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both need TLC. I'm not a big fan of all-negative criticism, but it may well be earned in this case. Perhaps more fruitful here is bringing them together under his biography.
That's some bad writing. Was this a hit job? David Bentley Hart's criticism is really of the man as well as the book; if there is more scope for the man in these critiques, we would have a good reason to merge all this in the biography, but we'd need to be careful lest we write up a hit piece ourselves. Still, these four (named) critics are severely notable academics. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stan Prager, I'm sorry, but your blog really doesn't help much--it would take much more than a blog post to fill the article with positive news (see WP:RS. I read the review--and the comments--and had this been published in a journal it would carry more weight, esp. since you do not appear to have an academic position in the field, unlike the four currently cited in the article on the book (and, of course, those citations were way too long). I assure you also that the editor who removed it had no malicious intent, though I invite you to continue learning about and editing on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a somewhat disturbed individual who has been banned from multiple sites on the web who has devoted his life to an attempt to damage the reputation of Dr. Freeman. This individual operates under multiple pseudonyms. I have deleted his last edit in "Academic Criticism" but honestly you guys really need to do something to lock this page down. This fellow posts wild things wherever he can to attack Charles Freeman. This page should be locked down so he does not get to do this again. -- S. Prager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan Prager (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this warning, [7]. Drmies, agreed--I don't intent to support a hit job, and think an abridged mention in the bio is sufficient. At this rate, both the warring accounts are looking at a short shelf life here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies and Diannaa, I think we may need a lock on the bio. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I don't know, not a big fan. I will warn L.A.Harvey and Stan Prager; I suspect them of a violation of WP:MEAT. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same. Also both appeared soon after Mr. Freeman edited the article, so it's easy to think some kind of call went out. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,from L.A. Harvey. There is certainly some legitimate concern about this page. I have/had no intention of adding anything but simply making the point to Wikipedia that those who know Charles Freeman's works will know that his Egypt,Greece and Rome is regarded as the leading university textbook on the ancient world (see the OUP website page). Please look at this before you comment further. There is not even a mention of this in this article yet it is what he is known for within US/international scholarship.

The comments under Academic Criticism are not up to Wikipedia standards as it is not even clear to what they refer, a single book or the whole of his work. As they stand they are meaningless. You cannot believe that they offer an adequate reflection of a historian's work over twenty years. As even the briefest online search will show Freeman has a large academic following and I am not surprised that anyone who knows his work would expect better from Wikipedia. Locking down this page will simply perpetuate its inadequacies. Why not find someone who is prepared to make an INDEPENDENT assessment of his academic career under this heading. It is not difficult to find the sources for Charles Freeman's many books online. As I have no further interest than one of legitimate academic concern about an entry which is clearly not up to the standards to which you aspire and unfair to a respected academic, I can now withdraw.If my deletion at least brought an important issue to your attention, I have succeeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.A.Harvey (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, L.A.Harvey. The criticisms are well sourced, and come from notable historians. We welcome assessments from WP:RELIABLE sources that support positive interpretations of his writings--merely claiming the briefest online search will show Freeman has a large academic following, is, as you well know, not itself very helpful. But surely there is more that can be found and added on the subject. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From L.A. Harvey Agree but the 'academic criticism' is meaningless as it is not clear what the 'myths' Freeman is supposedly perpetuating are- or are they simply academic arguments with which the cited authors disagree?. I also assume that en historiker is not an English speaker as 'the regular public readers' sounds like a Google translation from another more formal language- I have never heard such a phrase in English - what does it mean? Most of us are regular readers!!, some of us read in public too. I have no idea what 'merely by virtue of endless repetition 'means (especially as the 'myth' to which 'the endless repetition ' refers is not described). As this is an entry on a biography of an author who has a large number of works, it is also not clear whether these comments refer to the whole of his works- unlikely as he has tackled many different subjects. I am even more convinced that I was right to delete this as it is not up to the standards of clarity that Wikipedia normally uses and the text adds nothing that is comprehensible. The fact that one can trace the citations means nothing if the original text is as muddled as this one.I can't see the point of allowing outsiders to edit if they can't take out text which is impossible to understand. Do you understand what he is talking about? A normal Wikipedia entry starts with an overview, as here. It then fleshes out the overview in the main body of the article. Yet there is nothing on the last THIRTY years of Freeman's working life when it is clear from his extensive list of publications that he has had a full academic career including the Fellowship of a Royal Society, consultancy work, leading tours, etc,etc. Luckily we do not need Wikipedia in this case as I have found an extensive biography on the Yale University Press website. I am sure that those who want to know about him will access that as it comes up high on a search engine and has the advantage of including extensive reviews, many by established academics, of his two Yale books.

As suggested above, please do expand the article and add content supported by WP:RELIABLE sources. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry for reverting your edit, I didn't read the whole diff and thought that you were simply adding vandalism. ^{[Username Needed]} 14:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati: New World Order

A junk article, composed of nothing but original research. If I eviscerate it, it will surely prompt an edit war with the 'owner'. Any thoughts? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message at the article talk page, and with the editor here [8], though there's been no response and they're continuing apace. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies. Another pint of ale put aside in the virtual stockpile for you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All in a day's work. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I am a little green with the Wiki system, and struggling to navigate into conversation mode. I hope this place is the appropriate forum for discussion :0

I have a lot of experience with, and enthusiasm for, INWO. I have tried to conform to the wiki guidelines, including the one about not uploading original research. I have therefore attempted to provide nothing but verifiable information from official sources in good faith. It is a little difficult, given that INWO is A) a dead game (out of print, no likelihood of continuation), hence a little obscure in the verifiable sources department, and B) one of the first card games to "grow up" online ie. whose sources were mainly online in the first place.

Nevertheless:

All information I have provided can be verified via the sources which are listed in both the General Reference and Reference sections of the INWO wiki entry. I have also access to a copy of The INWO Book, have read copies of files downloaded from the official game site at sjgames.com/inwo, including the latest rule book, card lists etc. I have a copy of Deluxe INWO, and most of the Assassins series. Information about the German cards come from a forum discussion at boardgamegeek.com which lists the cards in German - I had to translate those, and discovered that the 38 new ones listed at the boardgamegeek forum are also explained in detail at the official website sjgames.com, while the rest of the German cards were hilarious translations of INWO cards familiar to English speakers.

The entries that were removed for being "promotional" were an attempt to provide more accurate information to interested parties in light of fraudulent and predatory trade practices I have witnessed online with regards to this out-of-print game. I was trying to build upon the inaccurate efforts of a previous contributor who deemed it important enough to make a wiki entry about it. Likewise the entries that smelled of manuals were my attempt to improve upon the interesting yet inaccurate contributions of a previous contributor.

And finally, the controversy stuff reflects a reality of kooky disreputable publications attributing conspiracy prophecies to INWO haha - you will never find anything about this from a reputable source unfortunately. Given the topic of the game, it does tend to attract a rather kooky sector of the community. Once again, I was attempting to add to the efforts of a previous contributor.

The INWO Book (1995) Steve Jackson Games Incorporated. ^[1] Illuminati: New World Order, Official Website. ^[2] sjgames.com/INWO German ^[3] World Domination Handbook v1.2 ^[4] Boardgamegeek-INWO ^[5] Boardgamegeek-German INWO Forum ^[6]

I would really appreciate it if my contributions were restored, however I appreciate your comments and will make a better effort to tone down that which seems promotional.

I apologise for the delay in my response. As previously stated, I am a little new to wiki contributing. I hope the information provided is adequate. I have no interest in ownership of a wiki page, let alone war for such ownership lol. Just trying to help sorry.

Ggroeneweg (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, Ggroeneweg, but before I throw a bunch of acronyms at you, I need to point you to two important parts here: sources need to be secondary (independent of the subject) and reliable (that is, published with editorial oversight, etc.). That means the sources you just listed (websites, forums, books published by the company) are not acceptable. You will have to look elsewhere for reliable, secondary sources. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have looked elsewhere for reliable sources. There's very little available on the topic aside from that which I have provided. Perhaps the whole page should be deleted?

Ggroeneweg (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good for anything and everything that's not supported by WP:RELIABLE sources being deleted. It's Wikipedia policy. Otherwise content may be appropriate for a blog, but is probably too trivial for encyclopedic mention. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too understand and agree with this policy. It would appear that a fan wiki would be a more appropriate place for such an article. I appreciate you taking the time to raise the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggroeneweg (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jackson, Steve (1995). The INWO Book. Steve Jackson Games Incorporated. ISBN 1-55634-306-X.
^ "Illuminati: New World Order". Steve Jackson Games Incorporated. Retrieved 8 November 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ "sjgames.com/INWO German". Retrieved 12 December 2017.
^ "World Domination Handbook V1.2". Retrieved 12 December 2017.
^ "boardgamegeek.com - INWO". Retrieved 12 December 2017.
^ "boardgamegeek.com - German list forum". Retrieved 12 December 2017.

Southern Connecticut State University

A promotional mess, per the usual for colleges and universities, with lots of trivial coverage of programs. I've had at it a little, and Diannaa has graciously excised small copyright violations, but multiple accounts are busy adding cruft and fluff. Any help will be great. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, JJMC89. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For this. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up, Darylgolden. 2601:188:180:11F0:8083:6651:366:FC6C (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peachtree Corners, Georgia

You stated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Quaerens-veritatem?markasread=123466235#Peachtree_Corners,_Georgia: “Please stop adding promotional content for non notable entities to the article. It's spam. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)”

  Although I thought the addition of a film studio was on the edge of being notable, I think a relatively small city like Peachtree Corners having a film studio was notable under the circumstances, specially since Peachtree Corners is not a place that usually has such a film studio. To add to notability I added to /* Economy */ the link, film studio.
  Per Wikipedia standards: “A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.”
  How are you an arbiter on notability and spam? Are you an administrator? How is it “spam?” If you could give a Wikipedia citation directly on point? If we can’t come to agreement, let’s arbitrate this matter.  User:Quaerens-veritatem (talk) DBManley 03:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think arbitration is necessary--I've removed a number of non-notable entities you added to the article, which have read as promotional. Notability is not relative, in that it's not variable depending on whether the business locates in New York or Peachtree. One question I have is whether there's a WP:COI here, or a paid interest. As for guidelines, WP:ORG is relevant. If the subject doesn't merit a stand alone article, it ought not be added to other articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference was also pretty useless as it was the standard PR puff piece that business development departments of city governments put out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - NeilN, I just looked at some edit history, and found that we've been down a similar road here re: promotional edits and warring before [9]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just getting reacquainted with this--back in April the discussion included long term edit warring over the inclusion of non notables at the U of GA, and multiple copyright violations [10]. I think conflict of interest was an issue then, and had something to do with the user name change. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And to take a random example, edits like this [11] manage to dress facts in promotional clothing. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've revdeleted another copyright violation. I don't feel comfortable blocking right now as I just reverted a content edit but will if it happens again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've just removed an apparent copyright issue as well. This was carefully explained in April, and has been going on with that account for years. I'd be inclined to go through all lengthy edits with a comb. Not that I will. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 I will take your explanation, and thank you for your information. Two questions:

You say that “I've removed a number of non-notable entities you added to the article, which have read as promotional.” This is the first reversion I recall on the Peachtree Corners article. Were there others I have forgotten?

Also, could you tell me where I had a copyright violation, the words, etc. as I only wrote “as well as a film studio.” Please assist me. User:Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quaerens-veritatem: It was back in November. You copied parts of the advert from here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we've done this before. From hereon I'd prefer administrators correspond with you. Ciao. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I don’t recall anything about the https://www.fasttrac.org/about-us/ . I got no notice about this. Can you show where I was supposed to use it? (talk) 04:66, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quaerens-veritatem: I've emailed you what you wrote. No one is going to check every edit you make as you make them. It's up to you to do the work to properly write things in your own words (and please, we're not a Peachtree Corners Chamber of Commerce publication). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For administrators, we went through the same sort of conversations at length, in multiple venues, back in April. Again, here was one discussion [12]. Diannaa was involved re: copyright problems at that time. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure?

Regarding this[13] edit, how do you figure it's a copyright violation? I got a 44% match for both your revision, and the revision immediately beforehand using the copyvio detector. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When plugged into Google, I got a hit that the sentence duplicated one here [14]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found there on 2.3. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that URL in the copyvio detector for either revision. Which sentence was it that you plugged into Google? Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further, more than 450 Fortune 500 companies call Georgia home, and Georgia has over 1,700 internationally headquartered facilities representing 43 countries, employing more than 112,000 Georgians with an estimated capital investment of $23 billion. Except for the beginning re: the Fortune 500 companies, it's copied nearly verbatim. And I wonder if the opening was taken from another source. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I could find for the first part is here [15], and I don't think it constitutes a smoking gun, other than the predilection the user has for ad-speak. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I do see what you were talking about, now. This[16], and this[17], right? Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also got a hit from the latter part of that sentence at [18], but I haven't tracked the page yet, and I'm winding down for the evening. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, Boomer Vial, page 3, second paragraph in introduction. Looks like the whole thing was lifted from that 2008 study. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the latter part of the sentence, I got a hit for this on two link. The one quoted above, and another that is on the blacklist. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which sentence? Can you paste it here, so I can find it more quickly on the PDF, please? Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the phrasing from the 2008 study, to compare with the Wiki entry: There are 15 Fortune 500 companies and 26 Fortune 1000 companies with headquarters in Georgia, including such names as Home Depot, UPS, Coca Cola, Delta Air Lines, AFLAC, Southern Company, and SunTrust Banks. Georgia has over 1,700 internationally headquartered facilities representing 43 countries, employing more than 112,000 Georgians with an estimated capital investment of $22.7 billion. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, the entire paragraph before I edited read: There are 17 Fortune 500 companies and 26 Fortune 1000 companies with headquarters in Georgia, including such names as Home Depot, UPS, Coca-Cola, TSYS, Delta Air Lines, Aflac, Southern Company, Anthem Inc. (one of the largest health benefits companies), Honeywell, and SunTrust Banks. Further, more than 450 Fortune 500 companies call Georgia home, and Georgia has over 1,700 internationally headquartered facilities representing 43 countries, employing more than 112,000 Georgians with an estimated capital investment of $23 billion. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first one brought up this[19], when I plugged it into Google. An almost perfect match. Good on ya, for attending to these copyright violations! Cheers, and happy holidays! Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 18:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Boomer Vial, and very best wishes to you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about that!

The edit was made by mistake. I apologize for the confusion. I realized it after, and I rolled myself back to find that you have already done so - thanks for doing that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite alright. Cheers and happy holidays, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to you, as well! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kendujhar district

Another nice present left at your doorstep, Diannaa. I removed a bunch of what appeared to be copyright violations, which may require rev/deletion. And there might be more such content, though I haven't checked. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked; found more. It was all added by the same person, who has received a belated warning. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Johns, Michigan

I appreciate your interest in ridding Wikipedia of copyright violations. Instead of deleting it, you could have done what I did. Rewrite and paraphrase it while maintaining the content. More than one way to skin a cat. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my message at your page, which crossed yours in the ether. I'm dubious about using that as a source. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary alleged WP:Copyvio. Serious charge. Accurate WP:Edit summaries are essential. You could look for better sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But I don't make that charge lightly, and may ask Diannaa to look into rev/deletion. You'll extend me the benefit as I'd do the same for you re: that source. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the revision deletion for that particular copyvio but have not checked the remainder of the article for further violations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're my hero, Diannaa. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Little bits of copyvio; Only = little barnstars ;) Get with the program, '99! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 22:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Serial Number 54129. Only I'm way too old to be taken for a minor. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gagik Shmavonyan

I don't even know where to start. External links, unsourced resume and WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. I'm guessing there's conflict of interest, too. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sirdejoinville keeps vandalizing Francisco Mariño y Soler's page.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Mari%C3%B1o_y_Soler) This page was vandalized again by SIREDEJOINVILLE in spite of not being a Wikipedia authorized user, and numerous repeated calls for attention from @Maragm , @Bgwhite and others. As far as i know he was removed or banned from Wikipedia, and yet he manages to keep coming back, unlogged, and makes preposterous changes to the page. Sure, he started it and then abandoned it, and only after Wikipedia deleted the Spanish version of the page and theoretically, kicked him out, i started to take care of it in the English version, making sure the sources are compliant, etc, etc, but he keeps butting in and adding the shadiest tall stories about this forefather of the independence in Colombia. I have stored a copy for republication after Wikipedia makes sure this Sirdejoinville is properly and definitely banned from editing the page with falsehoods. Thank you so much for helping with this issue and please un-publish it temporarily or ban this guy and his IPs for good. It's really annoying and frustrating! . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bisnieto (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the article's history, but if there's a pattern of vandalism or block evasion, I'd suggest you take it the administrators' notice board. What will not work in your favor is deleting the entire article out of frustration, and writing in all caps, which is the internet equivalent of yelling. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How do I contact the administrator´s notice board? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bisnieto (talk • contribs) 04:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's here [20]. Be sure there's merit to your accusations, and provide links to the edits that you think were vandalism. An administrator can look into persistent disruptive accounts, and suggest the proper action. And please sign your comments at talk pages. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln–Douglas debate and an impressive amount of original research

Let's debate: is there any unsourced content in this article that should not be cut? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editions of Bisnieto in the Francisco Mariño y Soler page

Good day, I wish to exposse user called Bisnieto who has made several editions in the Francisco Mariño y Soler. This page was created with historical proposse and the author has tried to conserve the page with edition rulers wikipedia has; nevertheless, Bisnieto user changes things according his own interest. It seems to be Bisnieto user is a descendant of Francisco Mariño y Soler and Ana María Pinzón Currea who were his first wife. Bisnieto interest possibly is related with a theme of nobility and his inheritance by wives order and other things; for this reason, creator of page, ask for librarian help in front to prevent the page be vandalized by Bisnieto user again and again and again.

Mr. Francisco Mariño y Soler was a real and historical person and all dates wrote there are supported by a history investigation. I shall thank the help a wikipedia librarian.

--Siredejoinville (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Adrian Lewis, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I make mistakes too [21], but please be more circumspect with the warnings. This has sort of become a thing. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, NeilN [22]. But who reads anymore? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, man. Yes, I also notice that I ran into you the other day as well... The problem is that Huggle likes to automatically warn, so when I came here to see what was up, I noticed that it was you (and obviously it was too late)... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - Hopefully editors trying to figure out what level of template to give you. LOL. Twinkle (where you actually have to do a bit of pointy and clicky before you warn) seems to have prevailed over Huggle. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, on another bio entirely, we may need to rev/delete this business, which concludes by speculating that government officials may be guilty of genocide [23]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more concerned that this unreferenced.... "editorial"... looks to mention and implicate individual people in this, which is a big BLP no-no. I'll strike it with the devy devy. Again, I apologize for the frustration. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On very rare occasions I revert to my registered account, usually when undoing vandalism at a protected article. The rapid reversion tools must be used with precision, otherwise they're prone to inflict unnecessary collateral damage. Reverting as an IP is a blessing, in that it usually requires extra seconds for me to assess the quality of an edit before I overturn it. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lecture--which I don't particularly like giving, what with me living in a glass house much of the year--is because you used to do this to me before you were an admin, Oshwah. It's been much more than twice now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, and I completely deserve it... lol. Man, that's the biggest downside with Huggle that I'm (still) having to completely overcome... A big gripe I have with it is that it doesn't let you know if you're reverting one edit out of a series of changes made by the same user in a group. If they happened to just get done writing some other things on the article, then make an edit that's concerning - you rollback everything if you don't notice before-hand, and then people are (obviously) left sitting there confused. I can say that I'm very proficient at using Huggle and keeping those issues in check, but they still happen occasionally, and it's super frustrating (for both me, and the person on the other end)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth '99, Oshwah is typically one of the better vandal fighters when it comes to assuming good faith with IPs. I'll call him out on it when he templates one of the (many) good faith IP talk pages I have on my watchlist, but I've never seen him get defensive over it, and considering how many edits he does with Huggle, from what I can tell he has a significantly lower bad-revert rate than most of the people who report good IPs to AIV. It doesn't make it better that you got templated, but I think it speaks to his character that he is so open to criticism on this. Anyway, hope your holiday season is going well TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. One thing I'm not doing tonight is getting angry or tearing anybody a new one. Oshwah has been tremendously helpful, and this has been my experience with nearly all administrators. The site depends on this, and I appreciate it. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback about this. This, if anything, shows that I need to take time and figure out what I need to do in order to address the specific situations that are allowing me to mess up reverting - especially when I bump into you twice over just a few days over making the wrong revert call. That's just not cool on my part at all, and I can't allow myself to be in a position that causes things like this to happen. This situation should be easy; I actually modified my queue filter to no longer exclude edits that were reverts the other day (heh, now I understand why it's off by default now...) - so I'm still learning, too. But this issue isn't going to be resolved by flipping a setting back... It's on me to make sure that I'm reverting the right person. In this situation, I saw that someone was changing the nickname of a BLP to something very different than what was on the previous edit (and I knew that this page had been hit today earlier). I knew that vandalism had occurred; what I obviously didn't know was that the change you made was fixing it, not causing it.

I really appreciate that you see the position I'm in, that I've spent many years in RC patrolling and what-not, and that I (usually) get it right. It's situations like this where the margin of what to pay attention to are very thin, but in the events that you don't, well... this happens. Is it rare? Yeah, usually... (which is good). But it's obviously a margin or error that I can't be okay with or see as an acceptable low level of potential error anymore... It obviously puts me in a bad position that I'm expected not to be in, and it frustrates those (including myself) when I do. Sigh... it's unfortunately the curse that comes with being where I am and going exactly what I'm doing... which I've allowed myself to create... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, we all make erroneous moves here, and it's understood that absent malicious intent, there's no harm done. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks you for helping me understand sources can you fix the ref on the Tom Kaplan I update source to 2017 Forbes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better now. I strongly suggest you not edit these articles in particular, but if you see problems use the article talk pages or the BLP noticeboard to request assistance. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried all that nobody did any thing we are not important nobody cares I will use sources from now on and keep as neutral as possible Flamingoflorida (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I've made a suggestion above that is standard for COI accounts. When someone's writing about their family, promising to be "as neutral as possible' provides very slender reassurance. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies and NeilN, is Geni a reliable source? Because that's the basis being used for birth and death dates. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:24, 21 December

Doesn't look like it: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_229#prabook/geni.com/Familysearch, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Geni.com?_Reliable_source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of thought it might be user-generated. This is getting to be a pain, with no sign that the editor will heed COI guidelines. Do you suggest I go into the articles again and remove the dates with Geni as sources, NeilN? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Geni cites. Nothing was used to cite BLP info so replaced with cn tags. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NeilN. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the geni sites extremely accurate from my side it is all true for the Recanati’s family treeFlamingoflorida (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a difference using a site like geni for an entire article or using it for birth and death dates to support the the other sources and the death date of Raphael Recanati is also in his nyt obitFlamingoflorida (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second editor who's asked you, per Wikipedia guidelines, not to edit these articles directly [24]. You're following these threads pretty closely, so it's likely you've already read it, as well as my suggestion here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding sources cleaning up grammar I am not touching the meat of the articles ie the business and philanthropy If we must have articles against are desirable for privacy then they should be as accurate as possible and fair and neutral I have added no more new information without a sourceFlamingoflorida (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no and no, and I'm really biding time in hopes of administrative support. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am being open and whenever a source is rejected I try to find a better one Flamingoflorida (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, the sense of WP:OWNERSHIP is unrestrained, and the guidelines and suggestions re: COI are ignored. I've never seen this sort of thing allowed to drag on so long. Am I missing something, or is ANI the only solution now? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) There's no prohibition on COI-editors editing articles directly. It's strongly discouraged, and editors ignoring the guideline will get jumped on quickly if they start disrupting articles, but not prohibited. Flamingoflorida, repeating what others have told you, your best bet is to use Template:Request edit on talk pages when you want to make a change to an article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want help with sources and editing for months nobody did anything I want a fair even edit with reliable sources Flamingoflorida (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't come to this page again, Flamingoflorida. I've seen plenty, and prefer to allow administrators or other objective parties to reply. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, I appreciate the above explanation. Despite the fact that the editor is generally trying to be constructive, there's a competency issue when it comes to blurring the relationship between reliable sources and original research. My take is that an ANI will be inevitable. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small window

I have provided concrete sources that they broke up beween june 1 and June 4 please don’t nit pick Flamingoflorida (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're relying on a photo of Julian Schnabel and Rula Jebreal together to ascertain the date they broke up, for 'personal' sections of Wikipedia bios. Neil, Drmies, apologies for gnawing at this, but it's gossipy and based on poor sourcing and speculation. As I've said, the family articles are not the only problem. I hate to go to ANI so soon after the closing of the COI report, but there's a persistent problem here with BLPs. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The June 11 was written on schnabel page I only copied it Flamingoflorida (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources can be used to conclusively state that a breakup occurred in June. A published WP:RELIABLE source is necessary to establish that, not a photo of two people together on May 31, and not a gossip column with an anonymous source, wherein the phrasing may well refer to the timing of the Bienniale and not the breakup. I'm not writing this for your benefit--you're apparently unwilling or unable to grasp basic WP:BLP policies, and move from article to article with some sloppiness and a lot of certainty that you're correct. But I am establishing a virtual paper trail for others. To confuse getting it right--in the absence of definitive reference, it's safe to leave the date at the year and not the month--with nitpicking is to say it's ok to be persistently careless in what we publish about people's private lives. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said by June 2011 not in June 2011 is that ok with youFlamingoflorida (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't me; I'm trying to account for an encyclopedia's responsibility. The source is flimsy, and the article was published in August of that year. All of this adds up to weak referencing, and I've seen much more solid stuff removed from articles for being banal gossip. The safest path is to leave the end date at the year. I tried to go that route, and have been reverted and compelled to enter an elaborate discussion. It's easier to open another gardam thread at a noticeboard. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to just the year I’m still learning Flamingoflorida (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are we talking about? I've already wasted ten minutes looking at their removals from museum articles... Drmies (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Shipholding Group

Hi Diannaa, could you double check this for copyright violation and see if rev/deletion is necessary? Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page 6

It was from a gossip site so I removed as you said to do for living people Flamingoflorida (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're kind of all over the place--which edit are you referring to? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon tisch wedding dateFlamingoflorida (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this: [25], the date refers to the article's publication, not the date of the wedding. As for the Lauder business, a blog is not generally a WP:RELIABLE source, but surely there must be an acceptable source that can be found. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's important for me to reiterate: I'd strongly suggest you not edit biographies until you've had more experience. Difficulty distinguishing between a date of publication and the date of a wedding is a warning sign here. Watch how knowledgeable editors work, and slow way down. Too many mistakes. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://wwd.com/business-news/human-resources/evelyn-lauder-a-life-of-service-substance-and-style-5556920/ Racheal and Dani are the daughters of William Flamingoflorida (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC) the other grandchildren are already listed on Evelyn launders page those are Garys children so these must be willams children[reply]

Thanks you so much

I’m not very good here yet you are teaching me so much thanks

what do you think of this article Israel Discount Bank Flamingoflorida (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you when you wake up

Looking through all your responses here, you have been incredibly patient with the editor so this is just a thank you for your work. I see that I am just repeating things you have already said and thus unlikely to get a different result. Hope you got some rest and enjoy the holidays (assuming you are in fact in a country where this is a holiday time of year!) Melcous (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Melcous. Cheers and glad tidings, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry that I am bothering you it is not my intention. For you this is distant for me it is personal I knew these people the 1983 Israeli bank crisis and subsequent trail caused Raphael recanati liver failure and then a liver transplant it gave him 5 more years but wasn’t enough to save him from a weakened heart from all that surgery and medication please understand that I do want to learn and am trying Flamingoflorida (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under the guise of neutrality on behalf of family, there isn't an article you aren't f-ing up. I wish you the best, truly, but hope you are blocked soon. Please don't leave any messages here again. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Melcous and Rhadow, this is the worst unchecked COI/Ownership I've ever seen. And that takes into account twelve years I've knocked around here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

69.167.22.108

Okay--I'll remove my report then. Thank you very much. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say you should. Just an observation. The anon probably should put the tag at the top of the page. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it looked a bit suspect, but I think your observation was better than mine. Glad you took a look. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's one that keeps popping up right now [26]. It's a user page, so I can't touch it, but it's the usual resume/self-promotion. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Murphy (politician)

You didn't leave a URL when you tagged Greg Murphy (politician), so I wanted to make sure: Is this the only copyright violation you found? Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it, AntiCompositeNumber, and thank you for following up--I should have been clearer. What I'm unsure of is whether a governmental bill is excluded from standard copyright law. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is more, AntiCompositeNumber. The last passages under 'career' are identical to content here [27]. It's entirely possible there's more. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the bill can't be copyrighted because it's an Edict of Government, which are exempt from US copyright law. However, both sections should be rewritten. And I'll note, for the record, that removing a citation is definitely not fixing a copyright violation. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. Can you check — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenrobol01 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. You didn't. Please read WP:COI. You also appear to be using multiple accounts for promotional ends [28]. 2601:188:180:11F0:80F2:9EE7:F03A:5B7F (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find my password for my old account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenrobol01 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really the only thing I'd like to help with is in letting the media in Greenville know that Dr. Murphy was blocked for making persistent promotional edits to his Wikipedia biography, and has otherwise relied on friendly surrogates to do the same. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New avatar

For the moment. 2601:188:180:11F0:80F2:9EE7:F03A:5B7F (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. You have new messages at Wintonian's talk page.
Message added 03:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

wintonian ^talk 03:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. You have new messages at Tornado chaser's talk page.
Message added 12:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tornado chaser (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. You have new messages at Tornado chaser's talk page.
Message added 12:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tornado chaser (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Markaz

One big unsourced promotional brochure for the center's programs. I'm always hesitant to do the broad deletions, since there's a tendency to interpret them as IP vandalism. If anyone wants to do some cleaning up feel free. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know...

Why not use the account you created to edit? I believe that you told me that you have an account and use it occasionally... I'm just curious to know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have told the story in the past, but it's been a while. I did a lot of article creation and construction, especially in one area, and I stopped writing for Wikipedia after my articles began to enjoy consistent publication elsewhere, and for pay. Once I was given latitude to write editorially--and the venues that use my work tend to grant an unusual degree of freedom--the restrictions of working here without compensation seemed a lot less attractive. Still, to kill spare time I continued to edit here but turned increasingly to reverting vandalism, citing promotional agendas, undoing defamatory rants and removing copyright infractions. In other words, work that could be done without serious research, but had a place in defending the encyclopedia's integrity. This reorientation seemed to me to be rather workaday compared to my previous interest, and I chose to pursue this direction as an IP, in part so that fellow registered editors from my past wouldn't recognize me (I didn't want to get pulled back into the scholarship) and in part, perhaps less convincingly, out of concern that my registered account would somehow be connected with my Wikipedia biography, which I try, with great success, to stay away from. I also found that for some years, IP vandals tended to be surprised by an IP who was trying to shut them down--targeting me was less satisfying than harassing a registered account. And then, every time a registered editor erroneously warned me or asked me why I didn't just register, my resolve to continue as an IP was newly strengthened--just old-school contrariness, and a determination to cede rollback privileges and work a bit more slowly, from the trenches. It's even possible that my move away from the registered account paralleled a disenchantment with academia, where I'd worked for many years. Some people react to professional crises by playing the misanthropic card, imposing their egos disruptively and destructively. For me, the idea of becoming a constructive annoyance, under the radar, had appeal. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you know what? Having you edit as an IP is a great thing insofar as it might make registered editors hesitate a fraction of a second longer before they blindly revert "just an IP's" edit. I very occasionally edit as an IP (staying far away from the articles I edit as a registered account) just to experience the interface and interaction with other editors and it hasn't always been pleasant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NeilN, that's much appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NeilN - there's nothing wrong with not using an account. In fact, like he says, it helps to keep a bone head like Oshwah on his toes when he reverts an edit and templates you ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: You know in a couple years I'll be up before Arbcom or something and this will be presented as, "...and NeilN called Oshwah a bone head!".

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN - I'll make sure to clarify the error if that happens ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Weaver

Talk page voyeurs, are these junior racing levels and their championships notable? I find very little sourcing about the subject. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the relevent notablity guideline, see WP:NMOTORSPORT; and that being the case, I would say not, as the races he is listed as taking part in seem to be pro-am, if that, and even then doesn't seem to have won any awards from his endeavours. Having said that, for transparency, I know nothing about motor racing generally or those leagues in particular. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That coincides with my reading, as well as my knowledge of the sport. The little coverage I found is in local papers covering hometown races. His website doesn't appear to exist, and the accomplishments section is unsourced. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NeilN. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because a new editor is so certain that he should be able to write his biography anywhere on Wikipedia

That he's pretty certain I'm the one who's off base: [29]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least the last entry on the disamb page got fixed :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you and Cullen were right on that. Thank you both. Sometimes my best move is to bite my tongue and wait for the next false move, but sometimes it's too good not to share in the meantime. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN is making the right observations and seeing the glass half full here ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well he just knows too much stuff, that's all. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how regulars with a sense of humor deficit survive on here. You just have to laugh at some of these situations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that true anywhere? How are we going to get through this absurd rodeo unless we're sufficiently stocked with that sense? Oh, I know. Sex, drugs and rock and roll. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if your "absurd rodeo" refers to life in general, or the nightmare we Americans (and, indeed, the whole world) have been subjected to for the last year. As I said on my talk page (two months into the nightmare), I've only been able to survive the latter because of Samantha Bee and Stephen Colbert. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarax, it may be used in either context. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to be of some small assistance while feeding the dog, reviewing customer emails, and watching the TV news review the wild and wooly events of 2017. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And cleaning up post-birthday celebrations! Drmies (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've had time at the keyboard for the whole of the last week, since a nasty bug has kept me indoors and forced me to abdicate teaching responsibilities. Luckily no class parties were missed. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And only one dog, Cullen328? We had four for the holidays, down to three now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I married a cat lady 36 years ago and we have had nine of them in our homes over the years. About five years ago, we were asked to take care of a delightful Boston Terrier for a couple of months, and he is still here. So it goes. Drmies, who follows me on Facebook, knows that yesterday was my wife's 65th birthday. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Happy Birthday from me, as well. I've been with my gal (gal? really?) for 23 years, and we've cycled through a few cats and a lot of dogs, some of which belong to her daughters. I'm crazy about the current crop, especially two rescues from the south. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Drmies, I forget when we're supposed to restore block templates and subsequent unblock requests [30]. It's an easy one to foul up. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're a unique specimen, my friend...

The Special Barnstar

It's been great to get to know you and talk to you since I (umm... let's just say, "ran into you" - twice... in two days... lol), and I highly respect your unique style and editing from an IP instead of with an account. I don't know your name or anything, but recently I've been referring to you as "Bob2" (well, "Bob") in my mind - because your IP in the second-most-right block group is B0B2, and that's how I recognize you around the wiki from all the other IPv6 addresses. So hi, Bob! Thanks for being here for the project and for your professional temperament and responses to conflict, and for you knowledge and dedication here. I award you this special barnstar. It's chocolate-filled, so enjoy ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Oshwah. But good lord I've been putting away so much chocolate in so many forms lately, that I'm relieved not to imbibe more here. I can live with 'Bob.' Cheers and happy new year, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: Okay, now I'm really cracking up. Which Bob do we have here? Not Homer, I hope! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Heller (design writer)

Talk page stalkers, please keep an eye on this. I've removed some nasty BLP trash, and it tends to come back. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, thank you. If it returns I'll take the usual actions re: asking for a user block or page protection. I may do the former anyway. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should. We have enough trouble keeping the place clean from political trolls without registered editors doing it for them! Out of ignorance rather than intent, I grant, but even so, it demonstrates what can happen when a little less attention than is optimum is paid. Cheers for the note, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, this was meaningless [31]. No acknowledgment that the reversion may have been wrong, or that a re-reading was undertaken. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Scofield

Another one to watch. Two related COI accounts, each professing to either be the subject or editing on his behalf, would like to remove sourced content. I've requested page protection and tagged the article for COI. More eyes will be helpful. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make that three COI accounts, with another new one springing up. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am working with the subject of the article to ensure that it represents what the full range of reliable sources say about him. He has calmed down and is providing me links to high quality reliable sources to use in the biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific, Cullen328. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please take another look at Gregory Scofield, and give me your opinion, please? I spent a fair amount of time on it this evening. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Cullen328: It looks much better, excellent work. I'd reduce the size of the photo: a) if the infobox is the same length as the article, it makes the article look shorter than it is, and b) it makes his hooter look bigger than he would like or we need. But it's certainly cleaned the Augean stable here- this time... >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, thank you very much for asking. And thank you especially for corresponding with Mr. Scofield and assisting with the article. I have a few thoughts, for what they're worth. The 1999 interview offers a lot, including a brief overview of his youth, which is thus far absent from the bio, and a self-description of his longhand writing process--the latter may well be dated, but it's interesting and can be included with the proviso that it was true to his working process at that time. I'd also be wary of having the reception section become WP:UNDUE; can you imagine if a section of equal length was devoted to harsh criticism, and the protest that would engender from the subject? Anyway, those are quick takes. It's entirely possible that the interview can be mined for more information, and that there's much more in terms of videos and written content online that can further flesh out the bio. As you're well aware, in all of this there's the fine line of welcoming a subject's offering of valuable material versus allowing their thumb to rest on the scale. And per comment by Serial Number 54129, I like the previous color image better than the black and white headshot, but what are you gonna do? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I intend to add more biographical detail. As far as the critical reception section goes, I understand the point about negative criticism but so far, I have not found any. Regarding the photo, I considered it a small concession to make given that he was very angry and indignant at first as were many of his Facebook friends. I engaged with him on Facebook Messenger, explained the relevant policies clearly, and he quickly calmed down and started providing a variety of links that were useful in expanding the article. He took down his Facebook complaint, and ended up being gracious and grateful. Plus, he is clearly a notable poet, I learned a lot about the Metis culture of Canada, and the encyclopedia is better off. I think that the concession about the photo was a small thing overall. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, Cullen328. I did notice that the FB complaint came down yesterday. To be clear, I'm not advocating that we dig up negative reception, just that the amount of positive critique not constitute a half or third of article space. Then it gets to looking like a publisher's blurb-fest. As for the photo, that's of little consequence, but between you and me, the calculated head shot tends to look studio-produced, as opposed to the candid shot. But personal vanity is not something easily relinquished. The most important stuff is the first mentioned: the addition of biographical detail. I think once that gets a fuller treatment the proportion of positive reception may fall into place. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no issue re: notability, and I found what I scanned of the interview to be very interesting. Just thought it was vital to make sure he didn't take over the bio. Kudos for your work on this. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current photo is a "work for hire" done by a professional photographer and Scofield obtained the copyright so that he can use it as needed as a writer. I will continue to expand the biographical content. I was working quickly yesterday to try to calm the troubled waters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that, and in years past I've attempted the same thing, once going so far as to engage Pete Hamill privately, when he and his daughter were turning the Wiki bio into a personal memoir. In the end, though, I don't much care about the notable's ego. That terribly intelligent folk are eager to misconstrue an encyclopedia article as their private territory amazes me. When several editors collaborated to write my bio here, I supplied published content and got out of the way, never seeking to manage the thing. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And when I tried to thread the needle between respect for the subject and Wiki guidelines, I was far too deferential, Bbb tore me a new one [32]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Jones (record producer)

And another autobiography, most of which can be cut. I don't know where to start; it's a vanity resume from start to end. I suppose the popular New Year resolution around here is to take control of your biography. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JJMC89 and Melcous for starting on this. If and when you have an interest, could you look at Gregory Scofield? I've tried, but there are several sock or meat puppets that have taken it over on behalf of the subject. The last I looked they'd removed sourced content and were adding Facebook links as a source. Invoking right to privacy. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Mr. Scofield has taken to Facebook to drum up support for controlling the bio, and is using that link in 'his' article [33]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries 99, had a go on the Jones bio but I'm a bit like you, not sure where to start! Notable, sure, but an awful lot of name-dropping. I wonder whether it might be worth requesting the Scofield one be semi-protected for a while? Melcous (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that last suggestion, I should have read the above first, you're already on it! Melcous (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave you a barnstar four days ago. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with the Jones bio, Melcous, is what so often happens when someone writes here about themselves. It may be true, but almost none of it is sourced, which welcomes the removal of most everything. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63!

Happy New Year!

2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you very much, Boomer Vial. Very best wishes to you for the new year. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Cyber Charter School

Hi Diannaa. I've removed a bit of blatant copyright violation, for your rev/deleting pleasure. Wishing you a very happy new year, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning and happy new year! This one is done. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Diannaa. Cheers from frozen New England, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to warm up later today. At least you don't live in Edmonton [34] −27 °C (−17 °F) this morning. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. People down south wonder why I'd choose to live here; people here wonder why you'd choose to live there....when you have a moment, can you check SeaWorld San Diego for copyright issues? So much of it is written in public relations-speak, it makes one cringe. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material is similar to the website but nothing Earwig's tool is flagging. I think we have a COI editor adding purpose-written prose to Wikipedia and similar but not identical material for the website. Compare for example https://seaworld.com/san-diego/experiences/dolphin-encounter/ with SeaWorld San Diego#Dolphin Point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that copying wasn't obvious. Stumbled upon the article via breadcrumbs left by one editor, then noticed at least two more working in close WP:SPA proximity. My take is that it'll need to be disassembled piecemeal, there's so much that's unsourced and unencyclopedic. Thank you for checking. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're talking about copyright, this may require rev/deletion [35]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

I'm looking forward to buying you a pint. Or a 99; on the Edgware Road the latter is currently cheaper than the other : ) Take care, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 02:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Serial Number 54129, and happy new year to you. When you're away from the champagne, have a look at SeaWorld San Diego. I tagged it as an advert, and was reverted. It's a classic poorly sourced promo. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New avatar

For the moment. 2601:188:180:11F0:7D87:6735:32A7:C08C (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you. It looks like this was an error on my part.

Excuse me

Wtmitchell, take a look at your reversion of my edit [36], and your decision to block me. Where the hell did that come from, if you'll pardon me? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wtmitchell: this IP is a longterm user who works in anti-vandalism and anti-spam. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked, assuming it was a mistake. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, TonyBallioni and NeilN. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be my cue to exit for the evening. Just a little pissed off. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Massive apologies. An error on my part; also a cue to exit for now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wtmitchell. Best wishes for the new year, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Witt

Hi Diannaa, this may need a some rev/deletion for copyright violations. And cheers! 2601:188:180:11F0:A1F5:62DB:9D7F:C96B (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see it any more because I've already done the rev-del, but some of the content was identical to the artist blurb here. An even better match than the url you supplied. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:A1F5:62DB:9D7F:C96B (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Elisabeth Robertson

Hello 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, just as I want to send my answer, you deleted the section. Sorry for my revert. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Serols. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of COI article creations with the standard issues

Serial Number 54129, Drmies, NeilN and any other friends eavesdropping, some advice will be appreciated re Susan Spaid (talk · contribs). I've at least temporarily slowed her down at Lynn Zelevansky and Carole Ann Klonarides, both of whom appear to be colleagues or friends. Both articles could use further attention, but the larger problem is that nearly every article she's created is similarly compromised by promotional and unsourced content, and the bios especially are well-written resumes (I've also done some pruning to Sue Spaid, which appears to have been written by friends and associates of the subject). I'll go through a few of them and do some easy/superficial cleaning; see, for instance, Baskerville + Watson, Sigrid Burton, Adelle Lutz, Julia Couzens, Robin Hill (American artist), The Imaginary 20th Century, Norman M. Klein and most problematic because of its scope, I suspect, Guerilla Girls. Some are better than others (I haven't listed all the articles she's written), but most or all evidence a tone of advocacy, per the revisions I've made to the Zelevansky and Klonarides articles. Besides requesting assistance, it's prudent for me to ask whether all this rises to the level of a noticeboard report. Surely there's a COI issue, to which Ms. Spaid has not responded, and I wouldn't be surprised if these have been paid edits. Thoughts appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a WP:TPS, I've had a look at some and done some pruning, copyediting, and tagging. Definitely could use some more eyes on them. I note that the editor has made only a single edit to one talk page in all their time here, which isn't a great sign. It would be great if you could get a response and a conversation started without having to make a report. Let me know if you think it would be helpful to have another voice leave a talk message for her? Cheers, Melcous (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, Melcous, and greatly appreciate the help. By all means please do engage her, she may be more responsive to a registered account; I'm unlikely to get any response, given that I was the first and confrontational contact. Best, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN has also requested a response [37]. I'm betting WP:PAID, not that it matters much. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add to the growing list of such articles those created and edited by Sue Spaid (talk · contribs), an apparently alternate account. I've tagged and made minor copy edits to some of them just now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN and Melcous, she's continued editing without a reply. I'll be away from keyboard today--feel free to do as you think necessary. And have a look at the alternate account if you like. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked until she responds. If the alternate account starts up, that will get blocked for block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NeilN. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing, but as you said, not unexpected. Thanks Neil, Melcous (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, though I’ve continued to correspond at Ms. Spaid’s talk page, I’m not necessarily advocating for an indefinite block. But I do think there’s a resistance to accepting guidelines. Cheers from 2601, or 99, or whatever. 107.77.223.229 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at how the conversation is progressing every now and then. You and Melcous have done an excellent job advising the editor but I'm not sure we're at the point of unblocking yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Agreed; she has much to contribute, but doesn’t appear to appreciate that we don’t post inconsistently sourced resumes here. 107.77.223.229 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Your efforts to stop vandalism (as at Michael (archangel)‎) are greatly appreciated. If you register an account, the countervandalism academy and more countervandalism tools will become available to you. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Dear Drmies, NeilN and TonyBallioni, I'd appreciate input from any of you re: a discussion I joined here [38]. I'm surprised by a series of comments seeking to question the character of editors with whom Walter Görlitz disagrees; [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]. These seem to be off-topic distractions and attempts to impugn the motives of several contributors; more bluntly, it's crap, with an attempt to draw me out by identifying place of residence. For the moment I prefer not to answer there, but would like to know if this is standard procedure for that editor, and if it's sufficient to take to ANI. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I invite him to this conversation? Or i can engage them on their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, NeilN. I found the comments toxic, and would prefer not to invite him here. Feel free to engage at his talk page. I see that Drmies already wrote something at the AfD. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I'll defer to Drmies comment. It's already been a long day... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are with NeilN on this being a long day. Normally I would be willing to help, but a bit tired personally. Looks like the Doc is up. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TonyBallioni. At the very least, can you block this genius [43]? Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That, I can do. I've also revdel'd all their contributions. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TonyBallioni. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please revoke

This account's talk page access, Drmies; Pavit Sohal (talk · contribs). Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NeilN. And maybe rev/delete that crap as well. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Drmies has faster fingers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. More barnstars and empty promises of fine alcoholic gifts to you both. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster rolls? Drmies (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, in season. I'm certain one of our universities will have a summer symposium on medieval English. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
Message added 20:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 9#Re: edits by Sue Spaid

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 9#Re: edits by Sue Spaid. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Victor Suthren

Eyes on this will be appreciated--long term bio/resume/blog, virtually unsourced and likely maintained by COI accounts. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SeaWorld San Antonio

Dear Diannaa, after removing some promotional content, I found that at least some was copied from [44]. The SeaWorld articles tend to be promotional messes, and there's a group of similar accounts responsible for much of the problem, so a WP:MULTIPLE check may be in order. For the moment, my specific request is to check for further copyright violations and rev/delete where appropriate. As always, thank you for any light you can shed. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion done. I found no other direct copying, though it's obvious most of the article was written by marketing people. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Diannaa. 2601:188:180:11F0:24AF:14BD:C1C:2C77 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity High School (Louisville)

An admirably cruft-laden and promotional high school article. I've begun to prune. Lots of good stuff left, Drmies and JJMC89. Just in case you've got some down time. 2601:188:180:11F0:24AF:14BD:C1C:2C77 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you greatly, Drmies. Had I access to your talk page, I'd add another gratuitous barnstar. 2601:188:180:11F0:24AF:14BD:C1C:2C77 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate it. Yeah, the last time it got unprotected some awful person with nothing better to do starting saying horrible things about my family. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - See, that's way beyond wrong. I may insult you, but never your family. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chick Vennera

Hey. My name is Joshua Ferguson. I am a student of Chick Vennera. I am sitting here with Chick and we were updating his page. You sent me a message that you deleted all my updates. We did a lot of work on that. Is there a back up? Do we need to send you a video mail to prove we are who we say we are? Any information back would be great.

Thanks so much, Joshua Ferguson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealjferguson (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Therealjferguson. My advice--and I think it's fair to say you'd receive very similar feedback from any long time editor here--is not to do anything until you've read Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV. There's nothing about this [45] or this [46] that's remotely acceptable for an encyclopedia entry, which has different standards than a personal memoir or blog. No content ought to be added to that, or any article, unless it's properly sourced and neutral in tone. Assuming both you and Mr. Vennera read and understand that, conflict of interest will still probably be an issue. So, armed with that knowledge, I'd suggest that you not edit the article. Rather, you are welcome to use the article's talk page to suggest changes, with the understanding that we can not publish statements or anecdotes unless they've already been published elsewhere by an objective source. Thanks for your note, and best wishes, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question...

for talk page stalkers: is this a notable enough honor to list these people here [47]? I don't think so by a longshot, but guess that removing them will be seen as disruptive. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove - completely unsourced, no signs of notability, and likely copied from somewhere else? Melcous (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you, Melcous. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Yates

Why did you revert this edit [48] with only the edit notation of "nope" [49]? Seems to me that you are not helping me understand your reasoning - or your interest level in dialoging, if you make such minimalist edit notes. Xerton (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, emphatically. And you, a new account who's taking a shine to controversial subjects, are on the verge of edit warring. But to elaborate, the lede is not the place for opinions by Dershowitz or any other legal experts. There's a 'reaction' section, which may be appropriate, if the content can be added in a neutral manner. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not new - look at my talk page; I've been IP only for 8 years. I added an account to gain traction in the credibility dept. Xerton (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you claimed a little while ago: [50]. I do think you're moving from one politically charged article to another, and poking with a stick. please don't correspond here anymore, thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

Hi, we appeared to have gotten off on a rough start here, but you apparently seem to be doing a great job. This is me extending my hand of friendship, amazing work with those vandals. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Mahveotm. Best wishes and cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Wintersburg in Huntington Beach, California

A promotional brochure, written by a COI account. Where to begin. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tag; another avatar

I'm it. 2601:188:180:11F0:E40E:D759:226C:FB83 (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitu Bhowmick Lange

NeilN and others, this needs attention over content and BLP concerns. I don't have time just now...thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restored "less bad" version (which is still pretty bad) and protected. I'll downgrade to a PC if you want to take a stab at the content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, NeilN. I'm not terribly interested in it, but did want to stanch the defamatory flow, which looked like a reaction to previous promotional content. Under the circumstances, it looks like you did well to restore a compromise version. I haven't checked it myself, but someone made reference to an old version being copied from elsewhere, so there may be some rev/deletion in its future. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Bob! Thanks for removing that COPYVIO content from 2017 First Data 500 - much appreciated! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Oshwah. See my message below--looks like everything they've done may require a fix. Thank you! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way ahead of ya! Already just redacted everything per RD1. Let me know if this user adds another COPYVIO - next time is a 24h block for them. They've done this many times and we can't have that... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and a lot of inappropriate templates added. Thank you very much, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You bet; always happy to help :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mass unsourced and copyright violations

Diannaa, NeilN, TonyBallioni and Drmies, it looks like Pootymalooty49400 (talk · contribs) has added unsourced copyright violation content to multiple articles. Looking for the tools to do a mass reversion and rev/deletion. Thanks! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Americanfootballupdater

Hi 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, I have commented against the indefinite block of Americanfootballupdater, as I think that he was acting in good faith. And, as you were the one who took his case to AN/I, I thought this might be of interest to you. If you have any problems, do let me know.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, why haven't you registered on Wikipedia?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 14:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SshibumXZ. You may be correct about the editor, but even if he agrees to avoid subjects that constitute WP:COI, his partially deleted explanations for unblocking aren't very encouraging. I'm not convinced he understands yet why the assistant coaches at his school would not meet notability guidelines; that using articles on other coaches as examples is not a valid point of comparison (especially since some of them have notability issues, too); or that persistent re-creation of the articles was itself disruptive, and still may think that aside from copyright violations, what he did was okay. I can and may add these observations to your comments. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, you are right about them not understanding Wikipedia policies, but, I think they should be made aware of WP:GNG and WP:Athlete one more time. And, you are more than welcome to add your observations to my comments.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 00:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented there, SshibumXZ. Whether or not the block is lifted, I don't think the editor has displayed competence to be writing biographies about anyone, despite claiming to understand notability terms, and is still adhering to the belief that assistant coaches are notable, whether or not they meet our guidelines. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about them not understanding Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. But, I still do think that an extended t-ban would be better than an indefinite block. That’s not for us to decide, though. Let’s see what decision does the reviewing admin takes.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 06:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Affluent

FYI, it seems like it's something of a disease, particularly around Sydney:

... ad nauseum. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thank you for noticing these, Pdfpdf. But I confess I can not see how to justify restoring what's essentially a realtor's visual listing of non notable residential structures [51], or why non notable establishments and restaurants need to be mentioned [52]. And there are no sources. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzhou No.1 Middle School

Could use some help here with a promotional account. And does anyone read Chinese? It would be good to know whether any of the recent additions have used copied content. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JJMC89. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: promotional IP

NeilN, TonyBallioni, Oshwah and Drmies, I just came across edits by 82.25.11.240 (talk · contribs), who I took to ANI and was eventually blocked for two years. They've returned as soon as the block ended, and appear to be hoarding a garden of drafts that may be promotional and are surely WP:COI. Am I too quick on the trigger? Thoughts appreciated, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit histories of a few drafts, a lot of IPs from City Council of Nottingham were involved while this IP was blocked. Long term evasion? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And much havoc to articles while the parent IP was locked down. See South West England for recent history of extensive unsourced content. If it's established that these are the same editor, there may be a massive thread of unsourced crap added to multiple articles during the block. Aside from the promotional bent being hatched, that was the 82.25's m.o. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all - You're always welcome to ping me and ask if you're not completely sure :-). I'm mobile at the moment but I'll take a look as soon as I'm back on my workstation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Oshwah. I'd be surprised if 194.61.223.53 (talk · contribs), for instance, wasn't the same editor. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 99. Sorry for being late to the ping. I don't have time to go through the edits now, but if they're repeating the previous behavior, then renewing the block is likely justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Sacklarian

And finally for the evening, I'm getting tired of being the only editor riding herd on this. Lots of unsourced, with a tendency toward promotion. Any assistance from objective talk page passersby will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobscot

JJMC89 or Drmies, have a look here if you're so inclined. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And am I alone in thinking their Mentors of the Year are non notable? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Damelin

Drmies, I notice you took a shot at this autobiography before. There are problems here, including the sources, and I’m also wondering if he meets notability. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:28B3:E877:F726:5555 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a whiner. "neither appropriate nor ethical"--no, putting your own resume into Wikipedia, that's ethical. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To a lot of folks, a Wiki bio takes on existential significance, hence the embarrassing behavior to maintain one. Via Google, I found better coverage of his marriage and arrests by law enforcement than for his career. If his editing privilege is restored, Drmies and NeilN, I hope he'll be banned from writing about himself. Doesn't look like he's interested in anything else. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
Message added 01:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ko

Eyes on this appreciated. Looks like a public relations person got a hold of it, and now it's laden with sources that don't support content. Blocked accounts edit warred to remove the templates. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's also something very close to Stephen Daldry. Both articles need to be watchlisted for possible COI and unsourced content. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Community College

Some eyes on this appreciated. I removed copyright violation prose that was essentially a resume for the current chancellor; I also removed some content that revved up the events of a no confidence vote during his tenure, probably placed by a COI account. Pending an actual outcome, I'm wondering how much of this is passing news, how much is a WP:BLP issue, and how much merits inclusion here. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your help, and keep it up! -Nott Nott 00:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, NottNott. The same to you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop reverting. You may block later. --Cyrus noto3at bulaga (Talk to me) 00:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jackson, Steve (1995). The INWO Book. Steve Jackson Games Incorporated. ISBN 1-55634-306-X.

[2] "Illuminati: New World Order". Steve Jackson Games Incorporated. Retrieved 8 November 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[3] "sjgames.com/INWO German". Retrieved 12 December 2017.

[4] "World Domination Handbook V1.2". Retrieved 12 December 2017.

[5] "boardgamegeek.com - INWO". Retrieved 12 December 2017.

[6] "boardgamegeek.com - German list forum". Retrieved 12 December 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 774: / Line 774: @@
 |}
 *Thank you very much, {{u|NottNott}}. The same to you. Cheers, [[Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63#top|talk]]) 00:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
+== Stop ==
+Please stop reverting. You may block later. --[[User:Cyrus noto3at bulaga|<font color="green" face="Segoe Script">Cyrus noto3at bulaga</font>]] ([[User talk:Cyrus noto3at bulaga|<font color="black" face="Freestyle Script, Segoe Script">Talk to me</font>]]) 00:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)