So I just wanted to say the reason I know the school has around 1800 students is because I am in the school. As a student.it says on the class charts that it’s around 1800 people in school in total. JammyDole (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter what you know, or what I know from first-person experience. We can only accept WP:RELIABLE sources. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, ToBeFree, some more eyes on this poorly sourced and edited piece would be great. Also, is the most recent editor evading an earlier user block? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What a long and bizarrely vacuous edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy shit that is bad. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Drmies, and it's a bad that goes back years with many accounts. Perhaps it's all from one or a few people, using the article as a long term test page for fiddling. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure this is someone who's trying to make some ancestry case. I think it's better now. ;) Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Brilliant, as the British seem to say. Another barnstar I can't put on your talk page, Drmies. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. And I got two article improvements for the price of one... Drmies (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for future reference. Drmies, Melcous, this is a rather easy one, just a lot of unsourced, poorly written fancrap. I'll get to it within a few days if you don't first. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it's a long-term vanity project commandeered by the subject. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• ...have requested intervention at AIV and ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dave McDonald (radio personality) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article already seems to have been a magnet for edit warrers and COI editors, causing trouble that seems hardly worth the effort to police in the context of the minimal notability of the subject

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deb (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Deb. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For all your help on this website. It is always nice to see other IP addresses helping to positively contribute to this website. Cheers, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, too, 47. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Ohnoitsjamie, when you have a moment, please take a look at [1], as well as the edits to the article that led there. A new editor has met resistance re: original research that gets into controversial BLP territory, and is talking about publishing a piece off-Wiki to then use it as reference here. I'm leaning toward ANI, but any suggestions you have otherwise will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to suggest that you not take Jay's bait on Talk:Kathleen_Newman-Bremang. They are highly unlikely to get an article on their gripe published anywhere that we would consider acceptable for a BLP, much less get enough media attention to it to make it significant enough to mention. I'll be keeping the article on my watchlist to keep an eye on it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Schazjmd. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Drmies, ToBeFree, maybe you can do a rev/deletion of this [2], which was copied verbatim from its source. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"copied verbatim from its source" is perhaps not the best way to describe it. I'm hesitant to remove it as the source has been specified, there are few other ways to present the same data and the size of the copied material is such that adding quotation marks alone may already solve the problem. It's rather plagiarism than a copyright violation, and might not meet the "blatant violation of the copyright policy" requirement of WP:RD1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that rationale applied more aptly to their follow-up [3], in which quoted content was copied directly from the source, without inclusion of the quotation marks. Thank you, ToBeFree. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's an edge case and I wouldn't be surprised nor complain about anyone deleting it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference it should probably go to UAA. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 06:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, DatGuy. It was a tricky one, since I wasn't sure whether it was a username violation or the actual person. In the end, I hedged my bets at AIV. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, here's another free time project, should you feel so inclined. Lots of promotional/COI history, and a series of poorly sourced 'awards', including for non notable student years. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh wow. I have done a basic tidy up. Will see what happens ... Melcous (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Now PRODded. If this needs to get to AfD your input will be appreciated. Oh, socks confirmed and blocked. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, both. Just drop me a line, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing. Hey, I'm going through a list of sub-societies of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. That should have been done years ago. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Holy crap. Drmies, is there any reason to keep sections like 'membership grades' that are (almost) totally unsourced? And has anyone run a copyright check on the article, just in case? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like this, which is pretty much the same as the grades section, and has a copyright dating from 2013-14 [4]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just for fun: [5]. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Drmies, it's hard to believe an admin would restore all that, including external link cruft, and call it the last good version. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was surprised too. I know him as a solid editor and admin. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Maybe we're all wound a tad tight lately, Drmies. I was surprised both by this and the force of my response [6]. Tempest in a teapot. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • As for the Computer Science article, Drmies, apparently you cut too close to the user's interests. Maybe not WP:COI, but.... 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah. Thirteen years, though, is plenty of time to improve it... Drmies (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yep. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions, Drmies. The first is whether you see any sources that confirm place of birth, which has been the focus of much recent vandalism. The second is whether there's anything that can, or ought to be done about the disruptive 2404:160 IP range. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to know if you forgot to wear your lucky Alabama shirt today. It was more exciting than it should have been. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh oh. I've been following the Yankees' death spiral, and some US Open tennis. No idea what's going on in football, pro or college level. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm that is very disappointing. Baseball? I'd rather watch paint dry. I applied a block to that range, the /39 range, which was well-deserved: thanks for spotting it and making my job easier. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • At its best it's a thing of concentrated beauty. And most of the participants have a chance of reaching middle age with a majority of their wits--such as they possess--intact. But that's a topic to take up over lobster rolls and Belgian ale. You're entirely welcome. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of apparent WP:COI at these two bios. Drmies, Melcous, I've started things rolling. Feel free to have a look, time permitting. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Melcous. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies. My model canceled this afternoon, so it was wall-to-wall baseball, tennis and even some football worked into the mix. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two bios we've noticed before, Drmies: Julie Budd and Richard Grayson (writer). Might be legit, but there have been several accounts that look like paid contributors. Your thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Critical reception" at Eileen Myles: [7]. I suspect there's a trail like this through multiple bios. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Judith Ortiz Cofer, Tao Lin, Elaine Kraf.... 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• And this pleasantry when held to account [8]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake--not paid editing, just another soul who doesn't think the standards ought to apply to them [9]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And charming [10]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a report last night at AIV [11], to no avail. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Drmies, thanks for the warning. They've made many beneficial edits, and I may have been wrong to issue a paid editor warning, but there's been some real head-scratchers. Plus they're real quick to take offense, so I've no intention of returning to that user talk page. I don't usually solicit for a second invitation to hump myself. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did you one better. After seeing the CU blocks I placed earlier, I ran CU and found that HeddaLettis = Jiaxing Wu = Myrtle Mankiller. So here's what I think: there are probably more. If you have a minute, you could look through some of these histories and see if there's others that look similar in terms of behavior. And we'll need an SPI, so we can start tagging them. I'm about to make some chilaquiles, though. Oh, I don't know if they're related to User:66CATMAN etc.--see the SPI there. Those point to a different part of the country, so I think that's not the same person. But who knows! Drmies (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies, Given the behavior, why am I not surprised? Sudsy2022 (talk · contribs) may merit a look, but they're pretty dormant. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better still, Drmies, XavierDodo (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I think they're unrelated...at least from my investigation. Now, if you'll do me a favor--AYO Foods needs more meat on its bones! Drmies (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, they're the same. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK I remember now: they were so old they didn't show up in CU. I was confusing them with CATMAN and the others. I just placed the block. The question is, how far back it goes. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Drmies, my longshot bet is that it's the subject of this article [12], who we first encountered when they were editing as an IP, then posted to the article talk page about his displeasure with the editing experience. The editor behind these different accounts can write, knows how to source, and per our brief interaction, said they were older and wanted to give proper credit to writers of a previous generation. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • By the way, if that's considered 'outing' please rev/delete it. It's a theory, not an accusation. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really. Have a look at Scott Sommer, which I'll clean up another day. Feel free to have at it first. Also Melcous. One can follow the trail of promo bloat left by these accounts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🤣 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Ohnoitsjamie or ToBeFree, I've tried to get some response on broadening a rangeblock here [13] without success, so I'm reaching out to individual admins. Have also tried contacting the blocking admin [14]. I could just devote my evenings to reverting 80% of what emanates from this block evasion, which has been tied to this SPI [15]. Thanks for any help. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I was changing the block when I saw that it was actually a partial hard block, and I am somewhat hesitant about making a sitewide hard block. Sorry. Yamaguchi先生, can you have a look please? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Drmies. Of course, I don't know what's entailed, or how large a range this would encompass. But considering the edit history and how heavily it's weighted toward disruption, the current partial isn't doing the trick. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it. And I had my rationale written out already, including an apology to the Machiavelli editor. But the hard block means that there's socking/CU issues, and if a range block has collateral, the hard block (meaning users with accounts are blocked too) makes that a few factors worse. There may be someone who ran the checks and knows what it is about, and can make that judgment. Also, if I place a hard block, sitewide, for a relatively short amount of time (given the collateral damage), for instance, then the old partial block is gone, overwritten, and so those consequences have to be dealt with. Right now, I gotta run--class is over and I need to go by Aldi before I even have lunch, haha. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for the ping, but converting a /16 partial rangeblock to a full one is something I'd prefer to avoid doing quickly on request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the explanations. In the meantime, not withstanding Machiavelli and several other legit moves, that's a range that will, by all appearances, continue to entertain. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to block the range, but not a hard block. I still want to hear what the reason is for the hard block: that must mean socking. If, by tomorrow or so, there's a huge influx of new vandalism, I'll consider that. I looked at the articles that the partial block applies to, and it's quiet there, and some have long-term protection. If need be, we could protect others. Binksternet, you've worked on some of those articles to revert our vandal. So let's revisit this, tomorrow or the day after--does that work for you? In the absence of more information this is the best I can do. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The /16 range throws very different locations together. For instance, Special:Contributions/172.58.178.61 is from Texas, and represents block evasion by User:Rishabisajakepauler, a completely different vandal than the Youngstown music vandal. The Machiavellianism disruption includes Baltimore IPs such as Special:Contributions/172.58.185.116. There are constructive edits in the range, too, from good faith editors. I would be leery about the large amount of collateral damage done by a hard block of the /16. Binksternet (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, my apologies for the delayed response and thank you for reaching out. Unfortunately there is no perfect solution for disruption of this sort and scale. I have adjusted the block parameters from a hard block on specific pages to a site-wide soft block with account creation restricted. If any other administrator sees a better fit for limiting disruption from this range, they are of course welcome to make changes as needed at any time. Let's continue to monitor for impact of these changes, and thank you again for chiming in. Regards, 22:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you very much Yamaguchi先生 and Drmies. I have the easy task--noting and reporting disruption. You have to figure out how best to use sanctions with the least possible peripheral damage. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaguchi先生 and Drmies, we've got another one [16]. Perhaps a lock on that talk page is in order. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know--this is all so stupid that I'm wondering if I landed in the upside-down. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another IP. Can a passing admin help clean up and rev/delete all the copyvio at Tracey Rose? Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:D600 (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Returning from a week away. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, please have a look at the puff job bio writing by Imc5howl (talk · contribs). I started working on Joseph W. Underwood, which is truly dreadful. Warren G. Phillips is in fairly bad shape, as well. Best, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Add Glenn D. Lid. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies, Melcous and Kinu. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Ohnoitsjamie, return of the WP:LTA IP range at covid related articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, gotta run and teach sonnets! Drmies (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2603:7000:B500:70D:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for 1 month. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terrific. Thank you both. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright--and we read Elizabeth, Wyatt, and Howard! Drmies (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Smith, Drmies, based on edit history, is there any way Nycbrooklynjesus2003 (talk · contribs) is not a sock? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Same for 2A02:8440:6417:65C6:D01E:CFF3:6316:19E6 (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• SPI archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlanCity20/Archive. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I blocked that one, and threw another one in for free. RoySmith, it's a big range that I just checked, the same range you checked on 2 October, and I am in favor of blocking it if only because there is a TON of IP editing from the same person. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take a look, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Thank you. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can give 3rr and OR warnings to the new user, but would like some more eyes on this first. Drmies, your thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think my edits explain my thoughts, but I have one for you: do they have a point? As a good administrator, I have not looked into that. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think so, given how many sources refer to that example. Looks like they're on a mini-crusade. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they've got some traction here [17], so who knows? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eng derson7es (talk · contribs). What thinketh thou, Drmies? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Foreign language copyright violation drafts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Thanks. Hey, I baked banana bread, for the first time. Do I deserve citizenship now? And you're wearing your Alabama shirt, right? Cause it's Texas A&M and I am not convinced it'll be easy. I'm counting on administrative support from Tide rolls. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies, I doubt banana bread confers citizenship--that bridge was crossed the day you became a college football fan, especially in Alabama. A convincing case can be made that you're now more American than I am. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, your warnings didn't slow 2409:4063:4B92:B744:0:0:BB4A:A30F (talk · contribs) down much. Time for a time out. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While we're at it, please have a look at Kim Waltrip. It's so bad I've posted to ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I revert, it likely won't go well. Drmies, ToBeFree, your thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That was crazy. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needs some sort of restraint, if only page protection, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha, I was dealing with some weirdness. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just another day at work. Thanks, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, ToBeFree. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, please block them, and their socks. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless efforts against vandal contributors, and those abusing multiple accounts! BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 05:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, BlueNoise. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:C8E6:ADB8:BC1A:535B (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, is there any way HerbRudnick (talk · contribs) is not HeddaLettis (talk · contribs)? Hope all's well, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, I don't think so; their fingerprints are pretty clear. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because what's a new day without another glitch at home? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, looks like a public relations production. Have a look if you have the time and inclination. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OMG that's too depressing for today. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite alright, Drmies. I throw these hot potatoes with no expectation that they be caught immediately, if ever. But sometimes they're too good not to share. I tend to be more careful in trimming than you or Melcous. As well, I could go the standard route and take it to the BLP or COI noticeboards. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks friends, I was up for the challenge today and quite enjoyed taking a bit of a scalpel to that - hopefully I have walked the line between keeping it interesting enough and removing bloat. Hope you are both well. Melcous (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Melcous. Also for keeping on eye on Rosenfeld, which looks to have sock or meatpuppet issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, if there's a separate listing of his books, do they also need to be mentioned under 'career?' 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, 65.182.144.2 (talk · contribs) quacks like a long time alternate of HerbRudnick (talk · contribs), HeddaLettis (talk · contribs), etc. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• And for what it's worth, part of the perennial WP:COI promotion at Richard Grayson (writer). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Well spotted. I'm afraid there's little I can do about that collection of crap that's the Grayson article. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, while I'm at it, Drmies, is it possible DrkWebber (talk · contribs) is not the IP you blocked at Premiere? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My error, Drmies--it was ToBeFree who blocked. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries. The answer is actually no--but they created the account after their IP was blocked for three years, so it's block evasion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Three months, methinks. Thanks and cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morning, Drmies. I present 173.22.225.250 (talk · contribs), who wrote this over a year ago [18], and is another likely sock of HerbRudnick (talk · contribs), HeddaLettis (talk · contribs) and 65.182.144.2 (talk · contribs). Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't that special. I present you this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XavierDodo--and thanks for your help with that. Have a great day! Drmies (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies. And *%@?!&# re: recent events. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw--thanks. So childish. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was more concerned for your privacy than writing down the information. I could have sent you a lobster roll on dry ice, which would probably be pretty lousy this time of year. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. A nightmare of WP:ELs and a memorial listing of non notables, mostly added by a WP:COI. If I removed them, I'd probably be warned for vandalism, if not excessive callousness. I've pinged Drmies too much--anyone else want to have a look? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm dubious on the merits of a comprehensive misconduct section, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey – I had a look back through the history. You aren't wrong about the whitewashing and a whole load of other problematic editing. I'd just seen a few isolated issues but it's only now I look more carefully and suddenly it all looks a bit CIR, or something. Sheesh. DBaK (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, they've made a mess in a lot of places, with supreme assurance that they're an expert. I'm about to do some reverting at the Virginia Highlander page, which is just bizarre. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I just say aaaaaaaaaaargh at this point? I have to confess that I sometimes find editors of this kind more difficult than actual vandals ... DBaK (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely. This is ripe for ANI, except it is torturous rather than an easy fix with a quick block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • But at this point, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, enough editors have dealt with them that a report would probably have much support. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      I do hope so. I must admit that I am never keen to go within several kilometres of ANI but maybe someone with a stronger stomach will do so. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • Sorry to ping you both, but Drmies, Melcous, when you're ready to roll up your sleeves....or I can just go to ANI. At this point I can't tell how much collateral damage this account has done while adding content to articles like Glenn Miller, but they've required a small unit of editors to ride herd. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        Oh wow, that's messy. I've done some initial tidying up on Miller, but as you say, difficult to know how much damage has been done and how to address it. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melcous, thanks so much. Yep. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, a heads up. I'm pinging you because my reversion at Virginia Highlander unknowingly matched yours at Chincoteague Pony. I've also reverted off-topic rambles at several other articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'd completely misread this (i.e., totally failed to look at the user's contribs), thought this was a newbie on a mission. If the other edits are as poor as those to the horse pages, there may be a good deal of cleaning-up to be done. I'm not about to plough through 247 edits to John Hoogenakker, but the first one does not bode well; it looks as if AngusWOOF has had his hands full there. I think this is ripe for ANI. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But figured I'd wait until they edited [19]. Thanks, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but I'm not at the mercy of some damn administrator! Drmies (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think, Drmies--AfD? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I don't know. I wonder how Matthew H. Steele, MD, is related to that football player. Yeah, that coverage is extraordinary thin, and I'd vote "delete". Drmies (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how easy it is for me to open that process. If you or anyone else is up for it, I'll add my nickel. Until then, happy holidays, and watch out for the weather. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the obvious, there's at least a little copyright violation in the recent edits. Any assistance re: the article and new WP:SPA will be appreciated--Drmies, ToBeFree, Deepfriedokra? Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks WP:G11 to me, but is a long-standing article. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's been promotional since its creation, it may still qualify for G11, Deepfriedokra. And it looks like its very first version was a copyright violation, complete with quotation marks. Never really improved since. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant assistance and save, DanCherek. Thank you and cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, thanks for flagging it! DanCherek (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, hope you're well. I refer you to [20], where we have a COI who's used several accounts and has added promotional and likely copyright violation content to the biography. I imagine some rev/deletion is in order. Whether user sanctions are appropriate I leave to administrative discretion.

It's 63 here today. Crazy. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What on earth were those editors thinking. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• User:ButterCashier, User:JO4n, successive versions of that article, until this edit, contained serious copyright violations--I'm sure you saw that that text was copied from the publisher's website. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Deepfriedokra, am I wrong to see this as part of a persistent attempt by Mr. Isaacs to circumvent lengthy discussions at COI, at his talk page, and at the article talk page [21]? If so, please tell me. In general, I think the user is ripe for an ANI report now--there is no edit they aren't willing to fight over at any article. Thanks, and happy holiday. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea actually. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context: [22]. And their user talk page, the lengthy discussions there since deleted [23]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My colleague is an actual, real-live PhD, so is undoubtedly of greater perspicacity than I. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is Walton22. Again. Of course. @Drmies: Is it just me, or is Walton22 in need of an enforced Wikication? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I pruned a few of them because they were not independently notable, and lacked secondary sourcing. I left a note. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Originally I requested a topic ban. But they're so relentless in debating every edit that's reverted at any page.... 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, do I know them? There was a note on their talk page about the edit preceding this revert, but I don't think that was a really problematic edit at all. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordonvale, Queensland--ugh. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's got nothing on New Harbor, Maine before that was cleaned up. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I can top that, easily. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 re your "there is no edit they aren't willing to fight over at any article." I'd like to suggest that's not fair. See the thread I instigated at Talk:Gustav Mahler "Inviting other editors to discuss" which wasn't a "fight", but a great discussion, in which a long-standing WP editor remarked positively on my approach, and expressed the wish on my own Talk page that I continue to contribute to WP. I am still making some arguable mistakes in protocol along the way, but am making an effort, and I feel there is exaggeration here. Drmies Deepfriedokra Walton22 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but we're not going to serve and volley here--at every page where you've engaged, it's a five set match with multiple tiebreakers. And to what end? Primarily, WP:COI edits. After receiving counsel from multiple editors to leave your biography alone, and at best to use the talk page, you ignore the advice and shop for assistance, finding ways to make an end run by enlisting others to do the editing in your stead. There was also the recent unsourced inclusion of a non notable family member at Gordonvale, Queensland. I'm making an effort not to revert every poorly sourced edit you've made here, but nearly everything, whether COI or not, has necessitated reversion or clean up by others. That's disruption. If you have anything else to say, we can bring it to ANI, not here. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Deepfriedokra, circling back to this for the umpteenth time. User hasn't learned to add objective prose [24] or eschew copyright violations [25] and is now adding himself to multiple articles. It's all sourced, and a persistent COI issue. Shall I open another thread at COI? Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better than pinging us. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted many of their edits and pruned a bunch of articles, so I don't feel comfortable acting in an administrative manner. I think an ANI thread is justified, and I wonder--but you're possibly a better judge of this--if a partial block from a selection of articles is the way to go. PS here is four minutes and 34 seconds of Jarrett-bliss. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies. I'd initially requested a subject-specific block at the COI report, to no avail. And if he wants to add his name to multiple articles, he will continue to get around that. From the start, the disruption has compromised, if not outweighed, the value of contributions. Agreed about ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and take it there, if you have the gumption, and ping me: I will support. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, when I'm up to the twenty or thirty minutes of collecting links. Or an hour. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is locked right now, Drmies, so it'll have to wait a few days. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm maybe it's that Vote (X) asshole again. Sorry. Ha, you could always log in, if you still remember your password. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I think this should be reverted to its pre-March 14th version. Your thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Heading out now, but if I see the content restored later, I'll revert and perhaps report. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, continuation from last year--looks like block evasion, with IPs. Watching basketball, I presume. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have never seen a static IPv6 address before, you're a lucky one here. My IP used to be static for years too, unfortunately switched over to dynamic CGNAT a year ago. No more simple and easy game server hosting for me :( AP 499D25 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes. My home IP is constant, until it rains or a squirrel sneezes. Then I return as some other 2601. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like this. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:11FB:1650:1038:8EBD (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I see. AP 499D25 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, you know. Could use a lot of trimming, and may need to be protected against long term COI involvement. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, the usual. I tagged this mess, but really think the recent edits just need to be reverted. Thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts are overwhelmed by regret over the new and boneheaded way I'm making this sandwich. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to elaborate. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No--just saying it could have been worse. Same with the article. You were right, and I threw in some pruning for free. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the IP added (from Toronto, of course) was so bad I can barely distill anything out of it. I'll add a bibliography, and from there, via JSTOR/other journals, one could find some reviews to add. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I don't use the term 'mess' lightly. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may I ask why "we don't do family trees" on Wikipedia? I've been contributing to a few articles for a while now, adding information to the "Marriages and Issue" section (which is very common on lots of personal articles). You've deleted the information I added to Claro M. Recto article and I wanted to know why, since his issue is quite relevant (some of his grandsons were politicians, actors or writers). Thanks for your time. 46.222.76.209 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It was poorly sourced content which included the names of dozens of non notable individuals. The mention of relatives who are notable, with WP:RELIABLE sources, is relevant and welcome. But Wikipedia is not the place for lengthy unencyclopedic additions--what other articles have you edited in this fashion? By the way, please edit either while registered or signed out, but not both on the same article. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, the article is already so poorly sourced, it would be far more constructive to add supporting cites for what's there, than to tack on yet more poorly sourced content. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Man--I was just offered a side job: teaching in a prison. I'm kind of excited about it, though it will be a pretty serious addition to my workload. Have you ever done that? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, I never have. That could be really interesting. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory and racist comment at a Black WP:BLP: [26]. Drmies or ToBeFree, your thoughts about rev/deletion? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. IPv6/64 blocked, but unsure about revision deletion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't see the term, especially when it seems to come out of the blue, as anything other than personally malicious. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I revdeleted it--thanks. I think such accusations (the one is political if not racist, the other sexist, even if fancy) are BLP violations. ToBeFree, did you mean to block them for "unverified"? Because IMO this goes a bit farther than that. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a BLP violation, but not all BLP violations qualify for revision deletion. I had to look up the term linked above and remained unsure afterwards. Regarding the other term, the article subject is dead since 2019, so a block reason describing the overall behavior as BLP-violating would have been less accurate than "vandalism" or "persistent addition of unsourced content"; perhaps "persistently violating NPOV", but that's not part of the default dropdown. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies and ToBeFree, thank you both. Something to keep an eye on: [27]. Appears to be an autobiographical draft, and may be notable. But a resume mess. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Drmies. I'm sure that the two accounts are separate, but in contact.

Not that I usually take much interest, but on the train home tomorrow night I'll be keeping an eye out for this [28]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, this could use protection again. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And Talk:Guling, Jiangxi, too, from the same WP:LTA. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Talk pages protected for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bbb23. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that looks way too much like Lima16 to be a coincidence. Blocked, thanks for the heads up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with the latest sock. Meters (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure, Meters. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:6D87:F1C3:F0DA:5249 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And a new temporary IP. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:6D87:F1C3:F0DA:5249 (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something fun. Drmies, what the hell? Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Have a nice Sunday. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies. That option never occurred to me. I will miss the section about him becoming a grandpa. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I'm sure you will--me too. I wish the editor would upload the subject's examples of progress in Paint By Numbers. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, Tamzin, you were blocking admins for Wildhorse3 (talk · contribs) and Sitush7 (talk · contribs). Any chance Greentree0 (talk · contribs) is related? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, for this gem [29] you've already narrowly blocked. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Less narrow now. Epicgenius, I just saw your note: two birds with one stone, I suppose. Thanks to you both. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies. If you're so inclined, I'm dealing with another disruptive range that's too narrowly blocked now. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Widr took care of that? Widr probably placed ten times as many blocks as I have, haha. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amen. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you Widr. This IP is actually one of many from LTA Ethiopique to the Clerks III article who have been IP hopping. They were given a 2 week block earlier [30] after my SPI report [31] and their response was to use the IP you blocked to keep it going. So thanks. NJZombie (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, I'm pinging you not so much to join the discussion [32], as to offer an opportunity to clean up the COI messes if you have time and opportunity. As always, no expectation, and I may take a shot at one or more of the articles myself.

• I just saw your tribute to DGG; I didn't know. He was a good one, whom I had occasion to interact with more than a few times over the years. My condolences. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I was very serious: DGG truly was a mentor. I could go through the archives but I won't, and it's been a while, but I am pretty sure that I learned much from DGG in AfD discussions, which I used to participate in a lot. And I think I was probably a hotheaded little shit in many of them, and I have no doubt that the record will show DGG gently correcting and guiding me. So for me this is really a loss, yes, and thank you for your kind words. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My memory is that I sometimes found his conclusions too restrained, which may suggest some hotheadness here, as well. But his intelligence and integrity were never in doubt. Thank you for sharing that, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much, Melcous. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the Claude Gauvreau page. I have added citations as you suggested. Would you like to remove the

tag? Thanks again! Chadgadya (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melcous, Drmies, the usual. A long term COI project that could use more trimming. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B51F:3AC4:56DD:685A (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another IP. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie, Deepfriedokra, Bbb23, I came across these over the weekend: Karlsruhe Zoo, Early modern philosophy, Culture of Detroit, being edited by newly registered accounts that are quickly discarded. Mostly the edits are innocuous, primarily wikilinking--often overdone, with some attempts at copyediting. There are many more articles and users involved. Most are here for a day, then disappear. Does this appear to be merely a concerted school based effort to learn how to edit, or is something else going on? ANI is locked just now--your input is appreciated. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:3CC9:DF67:D4F5:F1C3 (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for wasting everyone's time. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits such as Special:Diff/1152648690 and Special:Diff/1152593197 are likely caused by the article's maintenance template and mw:Help:Growth/Tools/Newcomer_Tasks#addlink. The Wikipedia app on mobile devices invites users to perform these tasks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your numerous efforts against vandalism. Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Novo Tape, thank you. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep adding maintenance templates; there's always a new WP:COI account at work. Melcous, should you have time and inclination. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, Melcous. Best regards, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, thanks for the heads up ... lovely to work with you again :) Melcous (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My pleasure, Melcous. Another, should you feel so disposed: Paul Adams (musician). I may attempt some clean up in the next few days. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that a nickname would be defeating the point of editing anonymously, but do you have a shorter name I could refer to you by? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oshwah calls me 'Bob,' since the name tends to appear in many of my IPs. But I'll answer to 'Smartass.' 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, smartass. :P LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Bob! Hope you're doing well! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine, Oshwah. Hope you're well, too. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrugs. We had storms this evening. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:9409:D210:7DC4:1CB (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, so did we. Hope you're having a good evening, Bob. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, aside from this [33] as of the fifth inning. So I'm about to call it an evening. Take care, be well, and assorted redundancies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:9409:D210:7DC4:1CB (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob! How's it going? Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 18:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just fine, Dinoz1. Hope all's well with you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm good, thanks. Had to file another SPI about a week ago about Nalina. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 22:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...is in order, per [34]. For the record, I had no personal interest in this, as was implied, and my report did ping the admin who was involved. Wiki doesn't need me, and the feeling is mutual. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do need you Bob! :( Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 18:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Acroterion: [35]. Sometimes I don't know anymore if a user is clinically disturbed or just too young to be left alone at a keyboard. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Probably not worth the effort to consider what's going on. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, Acroterion. Quite possibly associated with this gentle soul [36]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad for the kids like me who actually want to edit the Wiki and revert vandalism and because of these vandals, everyone thinks that all kids are here to vandalize. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 12:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow anti-vandal minor, I am very much of the same thoughts. Heh, I am pretty much part of almost every group on-wiki that is associated with vandalism. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an old(er) and often contentious guy, I'd say no thoughtful editor assumes that young people are by default disruptive or responsible for vandalism here. That said, when I was a kid, I was serious in my capacity as editor of the high school paper, and given to subversive behavior outside of that responsibility. A lot of --perhaps all--vandalism is an expression of infantile or juvenile behavior, which has nothing to do with age. Thank you both for contributing here, and please continue to do so as long as it interests you. Don't give a hang about people's tendency to stereotype and simplify based on age or any other superficial quality. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bob I find it so funny how I've been the only one in my class for two (almost theee) years who edits Wikipedia. I wish kids today would be more mature and not add "yo mama 360" to articles. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 13:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. After Bbb23 gave me crap about my ANI report, accused me of trolling and closed it posthaste [37], this resolution: [38]. Bbb, mostly you assisted old 99, but you've had a penchant for gratuitous insult [39]. Don't bother responding--I mean no ill will, but further comment here will be deleted. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:124:52C2:4E4B:4AD1 (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice seeing you pop up again. Hope things have been going well. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, LilianaUwU. I don't anticipate a prolonged return. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this and the other reverts. Could you direct me to the sockfarm (SPI case-pages, etc) in question. Thanks. -

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Fylindfotberserk. I don't think there has been a formal SPI, though the IPs have been prolific and spanned multiple ranges. See the thread I opened at ANI, which I suppose wasn't considered actionable [40]. The block evasion refers specifically to this account [41]. Most of the IPs are disposable, like so many burner phones. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• See also this very good report from January [42]. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've reverted these IPs many times. Seems like someone from one of those pro-wrestling forums displeased with the WP:INWRESTLING policy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something I gratefully know nothing about. But we abound in such policy cranks. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More for myself than others. Older and increasingly prone to disorientation. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I thought your comment at this ANI thread was a bit harsh on a seemingly good faith new user. Although you were right to revert the edits, "I've requested your account be blocked" is a very rough response to someone seeking clarification.

I'm glad this user was given proper guidance by Shirt58.

Please remember to assume good faith and don't bite the newbies. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You may be right, MarchOfTheGreyhounds. However, the user's brief edit history consists of [43]; [44]; [45]; [46]; [47]; [48]; [49]. I didn't revert any of their edits, though on Girona their spammy contributions were reverted four times. Agreed that a block may have been premature. No regrets in requesting one. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, it's unusual that a new editor starts a thread at ANI after a half dozen edits. Just saying. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did see the edits and they obviously weren't appropriate. I just thought they looked like the work of someone who doesn't understand how Wikipedia operates. The user talked about various different attractions in a small region, so while it's possible this user is the mayor of Girona or someone from their tourist board or something, they could just as easily be a recent visitor to the area. That's what AGF is all about.

  Reporting it at ANI was definitely a bit strange, but could possibly be someone confused by the labyrinth of Wikipedia noticeboards.

  The repeated additions were certainly annoying but hopefully that's an end to it. Thanks! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, and Bbb. Cheers. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't last long. They rarely do. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:A8C2:7EBA:3F8D:9B40 (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just edit collided on Christians Against Poverty reverting the well intentioned but surprisingly destructive "improvements" from StarHeroine. I haven't even bothered to address edits where it's just overlinking, as I'm not very deft at reverting and I'm still pretty new to editing overall, but so many of the "grammer editts" and "punctuation" are actively worsening the encyclopedia, it drives me up a wall!

Thanks for the great work you're doing to keep things tidy and MOS-appropriate round here, I've only absorbed a small amount of the MOS conventions so far so I'm sticking to the things I know. Great to bump into so many skilled contributors like yourself who are super on top of this stuff, hope to keep learning and join the ranks of en.wiki protectors ☺️🤠 Chiselinccc (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your diligence, Chiselinccc, and thank you for communicating with the user. That's not a new phenomenon--I've encountered new accounts before that copy edited as part of an associated group, and whose knowledge of grammar and policy was outstripped by careless enthusiasm. What concerns me here is that the obvious shared interest of this set of editors remains unacknowledged, even after my report at ANI. In the past, most such accounts become disposable, and disappear after a day or a week. But the behavior and lack of transparency raises suspicions as to practice and motive. Thanks again and cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't pinged you in a dog's age, Melcous, but this report [50] of obvious COI has been ignored, and if you're interested, you know how to clean this sort of thing up. Hope you're very well, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B0B, it has been a while! Good to see you here and thanks for the ping - I've had an initial go over it. We'll see what happens next? I am doing well thanks, have a great day. Melcous (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're well, Melcous. Thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgmant for Courcelles, whose talk page I can not access. Thanks and cheers. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I annoyed a rather vitriolic sockmaster, but I think we can try dropping it now. If you see more problems, please let me know. Courcelles (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing connected with my recent reports, I hope. Though sockmasters do tend to be vitriolic by nature. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this is my identity today. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1 (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because Xfinity wifi out here breaks down when the wind blows harder than a butterfly's wings flap. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:DC52:F9CA:9008:1FC4 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider creating an account. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never occurred to me. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melcous, I'm pinging you for input, and because I don't want to revert every edit by Smnesbitt (talk · contribs). But is there any reason to keep school group photos, wherein the subject is shown among many others? Sigh. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't know what the purpose of that would be - it kinds of feels like trying to name drop who else was in their class? I'm not sure I'd call it an "illustrative aid" as per MOS:IRELEV. I'm not very up on the WP:IUP, I also wonder if there are any copyright issues - it is uploaded as the editor's own work which suggests they have taken a photo of a photo? I have reverted two insertions of the image. Melcous (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Melcous. I've gone radio silent while recovering from Covid. Be well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that friend, look after yourself! Melcous (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I have to unplug and reboot. Which is an apt metaphor while recovering from Covid. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:7010:DDC5:E734:17EB (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it would be even better if you had an account, so you can keep fighting vandalism. Hope you're doing well with Covid! *wink* 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 15:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure, Ceoil, old friend. You're the best here. And I've been listening to that album since it came out. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Having been a year zero punk during the 80s, and to my shame, I didn't really get him until "Streets of Philadelphia" esp this live version, which blew me away and is still in my top five tunes. Nebraska is my favorite, with the bombast and heightened production of Born in the USA a close second :) Ceoil (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ps, haven't figured out who you are yet, but given your contribs and talk page, you are the coolest ip ever!!! Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the songs from multiple periods appeal to me--a sleeper is Tunnel of Love, which aches with the breakup of his marriage. But I also like some of the anthems, like Backstreets, which I have to listen to at least once a year. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel of love is under appreciated, maybe due to the dreadful cover art haha. "The Rising" is also overlooked, but its guitar work is at times sublime. Here is a funny story [51] Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good story. No comparison, but once when I was young, I was taken out to dinner in NY with my father, who had friends in the newspaper business. I sat across from Jay Maeder and his then wife, Jo Maeder, who was at that time a well-known rock dj in the city. I remember saying stupid things. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm User:The Troutinator and I noticed that you removed a considerable chunk of sourced content from Internationalisation. Could you please explain this? Thanks, The Troutinator 🐟 - Slap me | What I've slapped 03:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Troutinator, did you read my clearly explained edit summary? You've restored a large bloc of content that sourced solely to a blog. Please read WP:BLOGS. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh, maybe I should've looked closer. Srry. I don't really look into references when reverting vandalism. Maybe next time. (BTW, just in case we meet again, what should I call you? 2601?) Thanks, The Troutinator 🐟 - Slap me | What I've slapped 03:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand I don't really look into references when reverting vandalism, except that it suggests carelessness. Would you like to remove the content, or shall I? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fualajitalutes (talk · contribs)--I know this is two months old, but can't believe this wasn't seen and handled back in July. Drmies, ToBeFree, Deepfriedokra? Have a good weekend. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point--thanks. User:KH-1? Drmies (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah go ahead.-KH-1 (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Deepfriedokra. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*ToBeFree, I really don't believe this. If the page isn't corrected and the block reversed, I'll start a thread at ANI. This is gang up on IP crap. Thank you, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, if I remember correctly, I've met you as a reasonable editor who might instead consider having a look at the source's title, perhaps entering it into Google, and then getting quickly unblocked without much discussion as soon as you say "Oh my, I must have been blind". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right. The edit I tried to revert was a mixed bag. Some of it messed with format, but they were correct to change 'moneys' to 'monkeys'. Unblock or not, I won't edit there again. Thank you, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You'd be welcome to, though. All the best! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. And yes, the eyesight isn't what it once was. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to make this clear for the record, I was of course not referring to literal eyesight; the type of "blindness" I was referring to is one a permanently blind person can similarly temporarily experience. Perhaps using the word "blind" in this way is not ideal. I'm still working on my metaphors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while you're in the neighborhood, it looks like a lot of the recently deleted content at American College of Surgeons was not only promotional but copyright violation. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, yup – revisions deleted. I additionally wanted to inform the user about the copyright policy, but you already did so Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated--that's a page with a history of copyright/promotional issues. Thanks again. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and... sockpuppetry perhaps, I thought, but nothing extremely obvious. Rather multiple people attempting to do the same thing with the same conflict of interest, I guess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Though it's a stretch to start nailing WP:SPAs for socking, long term page protection may be an option. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And more copyright violations. They're relentless. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll interpret the account creation of Plainpastaqueen as a good-faith attempt to leave the other username behind. The new edits are promotional, but I personally won't delete the revisions as they're too close to a non-copyrightable list of facts. I have semi-protected the page for three months now, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thank you, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am an ACS employee who has been tasked with building out our Wikipedia page since it has been bare for a while. I am coming from a place of good faith, and trying to avoid any copyright/promotional violations. I would like to better understand how we can get around these issues. Thank you. Plainpastaqueen (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plainpastaqueen. Really? Get around these issues? For years, COI accounts have ignored Wikipedia guidelines in order to add promotional and copyright violation content to the article. Please share the COI policy with whoever has given you this assignment, and understand that no entity or organization has ownership over an encyclopedic entry. There's a reason the article is locked now. The best thing for the college to do is stay away from the article. That ought to be evident from the history there. By the way, in addition to the COI policy nobody there takes seriously, please read WP:MULTIPLE. Thank you, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For years" is not hyperbolic. The copyright violations alone go back to 2007, which is why, for legal reasons, most of the edit history is hidden. I won't ask why institutions of higher learning are so often the worst offenders. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to respond, but Drmies, what the hell? [52]. And thank you, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A good-faith error. Brought back some unpleasant memories. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just resent being mistaken for someone charming. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're up for it, Melcous, Chris Chapman (producer). And hope you're well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, GorillaWarfare, ToBeFree, if anyone's about, a rev/deletion at WWPR-FM is probably merited. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for the alert. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No idea who the target was, but it's just as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the message I gave you a while back and recognized you. It's hard to remember all helpful IP addresses. Cheers, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, 47. Thank you, and thanks for your good work. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I present the irrepressible 173.22.225.250 (talk · contribs) and alias 65.182.144.2 (talk · contribs), alter egos of HeddaLettis (talk · contribs), who left us on a high note [53], among other socks. No response to COI, even after a six month block. And no holiday from their home base [54]. Maybe nothing actionable, but unrepentant block evasion is always worth a look. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I cleaned that up. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Two years after outing himself and resolving to never touch his bio again [55]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have said that there was something illegally copyrighted from the Deadline article about the deal Sony Pictures Entertainment made. I have looked at both articles and there was nothing was copied or pasted from either site. 71.68.129.162 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wikipedia content reads
  • On December 8, 2022, Sony signed a deal with Crave as part of a Pay-One window licensing agreement, the two companies have entered a long-term deal, kickstarting April 2023.

• The content at [56] reads
  • As part of a Pay-One window licensing agreement, the two companies have entered a long-term deal, kickstarting April 2023.

• The sentence which you've restored twice appears to have been copied verbatim. Would you like to remove or rewrite the sentence in question? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are hellacious. I've opened a report at COI, but it's quiet as a church there. Drmies, have a look when you can, especially at Pirateer. I'd revert all the recent ax grinding and petty personal history, but it's a big chunk, someone will see that an IP did it and think it's vandalism. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Scope creep. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Given their comments, it's possible they'll return, so it's worth keeping an eye on these. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Notable? And the walled garden of albums and songs? What think you, Drmies? If not, what's the best approach to having this and related articles reviewed? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:A9BA:C0F8:7222:D5F6 (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess there is some claim for notability. But the article remains pretty bad. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:A9BA:C0F8:7222:D5F6 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I'm not going to put that up for deletion. I pruned it some more. Those bands, from that era, they fall into that not-yet-internet hole, and I'm sure there are references offline. But as usual the writing is terrible. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And a good pruning it was. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:A9BA:C0F8:7222:D5F6 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I've requested a block on this IP range, but this also needs to be rev/deleted [57]. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You got it. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. See also this [58], which supports the range block request. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this edit.

--WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome, --WikiUser1234945--. Good Lord, the crap people add to articles. Thanks for the kitten, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw it, Drmies. Should the whole mess of edits be rev/deleted as defamatory? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there's that Vanity Fair article which verifies he was in the book. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Aha--there was more to those edits than just that. Thanks--I cleaned it up; hope I got it all. The little book itself, that's not the problem IMO. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I was thinking about some of the other dreck that got dragged in, as well. Someone's been trying to shoehorn all of that in for a long time. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next thing you know we'll be dragged through the mud on some crappy website... Drmies (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe there's more, but this is still viewable, Drmies, [59]. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the reversions around it. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drizzling lightly today, so of course the Wifi must have broke. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E13F:8936:C820:C22A (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look at this and perhaps help out, Drmies? Seems like the most asinine thing for me to start a thread at 3rr noticeboard, but it's pretty clearly a COI with a disruptive gene. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like it's been nicely resolved for the moment. If one of the COI accounts returns, I'll consider a noticeboard. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we ever meet in person, we shall celebrate by unraveling a sweater. DMacks (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I should say so. There does seem to be a farm of novice editors targeting the fabric articles. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Took me too long to reference this [60], DMacks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure. Thank you, Fylindfotberserk. Kittens=good. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'm sure you've run into this, as have other admins. For the better part of the last week, I've gone down the rabbit hole of identifying and reverting new accounts editing in concert. Most aren't sufficiently competent, and indulge primarily in overlinking, sometimes to interestingly irrelevant pages and topics [61]. This is clearly an organized endeavor, though it's largely been disruptive and as far as I can tell is operating without transparency--nobody has volunteered just what school or entity has oversight. So, I'm wary of motive and suspicious that there's a lot of socking going on. It's all apparently innocuous, but the bottom line is that they seem to enjoy disrupting as much as improving articles, moving from one tagged piece (they seem to favor articles with advert templates) to another. Is there any point to pursuing the broader behavior at ANI, or is it best handled page-by-page, one account at a time? The latter would call for dozens of separate, cherry-picked reports. A few of many recently targeted articles are [62], [63], [64], and [65]. Thanks for your thoughts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, tough one. Did you happen to see User_talk:Drmies#Reconcile_Filippo_Surace_and_Draft:Filippo_Surace? Many series of small edits, to get autoconfirmed, and then comes the spam/paid articles. That doesn't seem to be what we have here, though I note that many of the sock farms actually also edit such tagged articles, no doubt in an attempt to build up credibility. I'll see what I can do, but yes, it's hard to figure out any general guidelines. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. So I looked at a few ones that seemed legitimately illegitimate--and one indeed came from the subcontinent and operated on a range that has shown disruption, but didn't match anything else. Another showed nothing of note at all. That Harrymaroonz account, after their weird response on the talk page (weird because it was so poorly written and suggested nothing about the editor's interest), I decided to have a look, also since they continued with their odd edits, and they are confirmed with two other accounts, so I'm blocking two of those three. But yeah, it's just really hard to generalize about what is going on, and so it's not easy to figure out what to do. Nine times out of ten they stop at a dozen or two dozen edits, when they're autoconfirmed, to then start spamming, but that's not what happened with Harrymaroonz. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good. Even if they don't all appear to be operating with the same goal, there are articles to which they gather, so there's some kind of coherent organization. Thank you--the article histories I listed above ought to offer a small key of sorts to the various threads. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another popular target: Edible Schoolyard. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm kind of wondering what User:DS0022 is up to. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • A lot of talk page edits. To belabor the point, there's so much of this going on right now....2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, perhaps this is where it's going [66]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, any chance Outlawgirl109 (talk · contribs) and Editor35924 (talk · contribs) are not the same, based on edits here alone [67]? Also a similar certainty in their own copy editing gifts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of those, huh. OK: Outlawgirl109 is confirmed with a few other accounts, but there's no socking there that I can see. HeddyV56 might be Reddynot, and these two seem like bad actors, but Chavmen is also a perfect match with Heddy--for what it's worth. Editor35etc. is not related to any of those. Weird, so weird, these sets of copyedits, in so many similar articles. One wonders if there's an algorithm behind it. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time, Drmies. It's very odd, and makes me wonder if, and why, someone is gaming the system. Of course, it may all be innocuous, but usually an organized group of students is transparent about announcing intent. This is something else. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63,

Just wanted to message you clarifying why your request for deletion of the Government People Group page draft was not correct. You mentioned it read as brochure material, however the language used fits in line with Wikipedia rules and regulations and uses only factual, non promotional language. Also the conflict of interest has been declared on the users page, therefore also complying with wikipedia rules of declaring interests. Your deletion request (G11) has been reverted by a moderator (not myself). GPG Communications (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. It did not comply with our guidelines on tone and content. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does as it is in draft, so G11 doesnt even apply in the first place. Furthermore, there is no call to action, non-factual narrative, or promotional content. The guidelines will have more info.

51.149.8.87 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to prolong discussion here, when there's an AfD page and a draft talk page, so I'll close this section with these observations. The best that can be said of the draft is that it has thus far avoided deletion. It does not, as stated by Drmies, comply with guidelines that would make it an acceptable article in mainspace--if that can't be seen, it's because WP:COI accounts generally are unable to discern such subtleties. Lastly, please remember to sign in to edit and comment with your registered account. Forgetting to do so can give the appearance of using WP:MULTIPLE accounts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until I find my way back. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:A55D:AC7D:CD54:BBE9 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And Cheezus, Drmies [68]. The ways in which I waste my time. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:A55D:AC7D:CD54:BBE9 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I even want to look? I just ran into a sockfarm again. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Drmies. I'm heading out, but if there's any way I can help with the latest socks, let me know and I'll follow up tonight. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:A55D:AC7D:CD54:BBE9 (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no stopping it, haha. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at Nick Maughan and Nick Maughan Foundation, and probably more bios by the editors behind these, but the Maughan pieces are a start. Unrelated is Robert Barnes (attorney), but there's a similar whiff of paid editing there. Drmies, Melcous, I drop these not with the expectation that you 'fix' them on a Friday night or this weekend, so much as to get your take and have more eyes on these. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha, I'm just sitting here waiting on the family to come home. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no doubt that that editor you're thinking of writes for pay. You might could take it to COIN--I'm getting busy here. Thanks and take care, Drmies (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I'd agonize over cuts that you perform surgically in seconds. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I visited Robert Barnes (attorney) and found some concerning POV language inserted by FalconXray532 that described the terrorist plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer as "the FBI's staged plot" and presented the claim that bail for January 6th Defendants was weaponized without any editorial qualifiers. I fear that that user may have an agenda and be a source of future issues. However, I am a very new Wikipedian and am unsure of how to address it correctly, or to begin the process to potentially protect the article or similar doings, if indeed necessary. So I'm writing here to hopefully recruit your help in maintaining NPOV on that article and potentially others that the user in question may choose to get involved with, particularly considering Barnes' considerable work with agenda-driven media like RT. Thanks for everything that you do! TomTuohy (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that was a bizarre little editorial they snuck in. Thanks for spotting it, TomTuohy. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi there. I think there has been a misunderstanding here. The language I used in these descriptions were not intended to convey my analysis of the events in question, but rather Mr. Barnes' description of them in the speech. Because it is in the section about his "political views," I find it important to include that he believes the Whitmer plot was staged by the FBI, and that he believes bail was weaponized against the J6 defendants. FalconXray532 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying, and offering a good edit that rectifies the article! TomTuohy (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also add that I have no personal connection to Mr. Barnes or anyone else mentioned in the article. FalconXray532 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Robert Barnes (attorney), Drmies? Notwithstanding your denial, FalconXray532, your edit history is kind of the definition of conflict of interest. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Dr, some game this evening. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was! Pretty unbelievable play. You may know that February 26 is already something of a holiday here; I wonder if we'll put April 31 on the calendar too. Could be tricky. Volunteer Marek, you OK? That was a rough game. User:AuburnPilot, I don't know if you're still around, but your name came up in conversation. User:Tide rolls, man! Drmies (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

99, you asked if I had some thoughts on the article--the history will tell you what I was thinking, but I'm sure there are no surprises there. Hope you are well! Drmies (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies. Yeah, fourth and 31. And the pass was perfect. In my nostalgic memory bank, the closest I can summon is [69]. Which is pretty good. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:6D94:4E6F:65C4:F531 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All's well here, family visiting in rotations this weekend. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:6D94:4E6F:65C4:F531 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my intrusion on your user talk, IP, but a ping from the Professor demands attention. Your continued needling of our friends from the plains has its risks. Tread carefully, mon ami. Tiderolls 03:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not needling, User:Tide rolls: I value their friendship, and let's face it, we almost lost, and deservedly. Auburn rose above itself, and it makes me worried for the next game! Drmies (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I offer this, Drmies: the usual overlinking edits by Andray Leonchik (talk · contribs), but what has caught my attention are the AI-generated copy edits back in August. I've reverted some, and wonder if this is actionable, and what Wiki's policy is on such 'contributions.' At the very least, they're noticeably verbose and promotional in tone. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I don't know what to tell you, cause I don't know. It's come up once or twice, on ANI, and no one objects to that kind of material being reverted. I don't remember any general verdict coming out of those discussion. We've also seen AI-generated unblock requests, haha, which are typically summarily dismissed. The other problem of course is that you can't prove, like with plagiarism, that text is indeed AI-generated... Drmies (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I suppose it can't be proved, but it's still obvious until the technology improves [70]. Needs to be discussed at a higher level than ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:48EE:464F:CE18:8A14 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here we are, waiting to return to my home 2601. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8E9:8F84:47A1:F1C1 (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And another. Every time there's frost overnight....2601:19E:4180:6D50:30DC:8B37:565A:A39F (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, here's an impressive piece of COI. The external links section is a doozy. Have a look when you have a month free. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• But handle with care. The recent cancer diagnosis isn't good. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, another promotional bio, newly minted. Have a look at your convenience. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Melcous--I've gone back in and pared more poorly sourced public relations fluff. Drmies may find more, still. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• You're welcome - yes, its always good to see how different eyes bring different perspectives and hopefully together make it much better! Hope you are well Melcous (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But she has such a lovely name. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there's absolutely no COI. we're assured. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess it's on. That's really a very poorly done piece of PR. I wonder if this is something for AfD. And it's so blatant--paid reviews from Kirkus for a self-published book, user-submitted stuff from fanzines, some video (?) in a comment on a news article... I left a level-3 warning for promotional editing, which I think is justified given the reverts and the comments. Next step is AIV; feel free to revert and warn, and perhaps ask for a partial block from the article. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everything about it looked like a professional public relations account that couldn't have cared less about Wiki policies--they were here to represent a client. We'll see if the partial ban resolves it. Thanks, Drmies, and happy holidays! 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Though you might be an IP, I still greatly appreciate your efforts to clean up vandalism. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. No need to qualify that a user "might be an IP." I can't tell you how many registered accounts I've reported and seen blocked. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad weather and multiple power outage later.... 2601:19E:4180:6D50:84CC:595A:A3AE:9B1 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[71]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Young people and their stringing together of prepositions... Drmies (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That, too. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, first, condolences on today's game. Second, your thoughts on how much, if any of this, belongs here : [72]. And Happy New, etc. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you; I appreciate that. No doubt you saw my heartfelt Facebook post. I think that article needs to have at least some of that content, though I don't agree with the inclusion of the last bit, and I'm about to go make an edit or two--thanks. Happy New Year to you too. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jump Associates. Some low hanging fruit, when you feel like having a look, Drmies. I'd cut it to the bone, but considering it's sourced, someone will mistake it for disruptive. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's another one, Drmies, with apologies for pinging you too much in the new year. I can't revert the whitewashing here [73], and am wondering about a lot of unsourced work by that account. Thanks, and thanks for helping out at Jump Associates. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping me whenever. It's cold and wet here. I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be our preview. Looking like the first snowstorm of the season arrives here Sunday. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talk page, press “learn more about this page” and it says “ The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" should be avoided” Battalion of allah (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, though in this instance it refers to the gang rape of women--which tends to be an act of terrorism rather than militancy--and is using the terminology of its source. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a fine mare's nest of a biography written by WP:COI accounts. The first problem is the notice of death, unsourced and without support that I can find so far online. More deeply embedded are the bits of generally laudatory original research sprinkled throughout, presumably personal assessments by colleagues and/or students. Thoughts, Melcous, Drmies? Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any astrophysicists editing here? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's W.A. Fred, I think--this whole thing needs serious pruning. There's a few actual secondary sources, right? Drmies (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies. Watching Miami tonight, but I've got an early morning, so they'll have to lose this one without me. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw some of it, but didn't finish watching. I'll go see what happened. You know I'm a Tua fan--2 and 26! Drmies (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember all those tiny little and often useless edits by brand-new accounts? The recent history of Singapore Red Cross Youth (before I redirected it) are a clear example. I don't like it. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly, Drmies, I don't think much of it either. But its occurrence isn't a mystery--at Singapore Red Cross Youth the spate of edits was precipitated by this [74], a longtime editor who sprinkles underlinked templates like apple seeds, and new editors respond en masse with predictable results. I'd contend that the underlinked template causes more trouble than it's worth, and ought to be permanently retired. My next complaint will be about the incursion of AI into article content, which has much deeper ramifications. But first things first. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hope this was courteous enough: User_talk:WhatamIdoing#"Underlinked". Drmies (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure. Aren't we generally advised not to drive-by template? I still do, but much more discretely than I used to, which is to say I accompany templates with some editing, or decide that the issue is serious enough to merit a template without further action to justify its placement. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • And while we're at it, Drmies, really [75]? They thought that was defensible? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, what can I say. The guy called me and User:AntiDionysius racists, so I'm just going to leave it be. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • I saw. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Followed a thread you started, Drmies--see [76]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backup on this would be appreciated, Drmies. I prefer not to keep reverting here because I don't know the subject, but it looks like a lot of original research and dubious sourcing [77]. Have a look when you're able. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, that's not my area either (I'm on hold with a motherboard company...), and I think different rules apply there--no sourcing requirements, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had no idea. And here I thought I was too old to learn anything new. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's try this one. Drmies, in addition to edit warring at the cat article, the two new accounts working at Domestic short-haired cat and Holland Lop look like socks or meatpuppets. Thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We really should stop meeting like this. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm not telling anyone. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, maybe you can weigh in at User_talk:WhatamIdoing#"Underlinked". Drmies (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be happy to tomorrow, Drmies. Long day in the city, with weather related travel fun. My two cents on the matter may be more polarizing than persuasive, though. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's a valued opinion anyway. Yeah, I suppose you're even colder than me! Take care! Drmies (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried, Drmies, and the response was basically a middle finger [78], with a continuation of drive-by tagging, no matter the ensuing damage. Are there any other possible avenues besides ANI? Could be a hard sell there, but I'd hew pretty closely to my talk page explanation. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I'm getting too old for picking fights, but that response just isn't very helpful--like these new editors are really going through that list of suggestions. Linking isn't some regular maintenance work or some simple activity for a beginner; it requires judgment and some common sense. I think we're dealing with someone who hasn't looked at all the angles and doesn't really care to. Oops, sorry, I ended a sentence with a preposition. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I beat you on the age thing. You're a spring chicken. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seriously, Drmies, there's been an epidemic in overlinking recently, and here's a longtime editor who's intentionally abetting the problem. I noticed another ANI report devoted to the issue today. If there are any other admins or talk page stalkers who feel this merits further attention, I'll support it. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I looked at that one--with a predictable result. I've been trying to clean out Category:Articles with a promotional tone from November 2011 and now, after cleaning out dozens of articles, I can't see straight anymore. Take care and stay warm, Drmies (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeoman's work, Drmies. Thank you and stay warm yourself. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, you saw what happened at ANI as a result of that. I think one other thing was challenged, so I think I'm batting pretty good. Making lasagna: helps keep the kitchen warm! Drmies (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving breadcrumbs. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:FC5D:2927:11BD:DF5 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the overlinking at chronic cough! Have a wonderful weekend, thanks for all that you do here! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, Schrödinger's jellyfish. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We meet again! Thanks for taking care of the Cliff Cash vandal. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 04:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger's jellyfish, cheers. It's a reliable daily chore, like emptying the garbage. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my section on Woodstock High School vs Woodstock North High School you said “we don’t do rivalries” who is we and why did you remove it AldoZarate79 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "We" is Wikipedia, per WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI: Comparisons of sports results, exam results, etc. between schools which introduces rivalry, unless third-party reliable sources themselves make such comparisons; otherwise this is a form of original research. Such content can also be considered promotional, and although written for colleges and universities, the advice in Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism also applies here.

Please also see the note another editor left at your talk page, AldoZarate79, regarding your removal of sourced and addition of unsourced content. If WP:COI applies, please take note of that as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly know where to begin. Drmies, have a look when so inclined. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An advert for weapons merchants. And the associated Faisal Al Bannai. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Virtual barnstar. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate it. I just defluffed it a bit--there's no way it's even a decent article. I did drop a few COI templates, and endorsed yours. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should really stop meeting like this. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTAF, Drmies--has this account ever rewritten an article well enough to remove a COI template [79]? Because that's all they do. And I love the rewrite of the lede here [80]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question: Maybe. But not by much. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, I'm trying not to paste a COI tag on this, which would be well merited given the recent edits by a close friend. The long section of quotes and overall tone, including assessments of work sourced to the artist's website, are problematic. More input welcome. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I just realized--much of it appears to be copied from his website. There may be a mass rev/delete needed. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, go for it--the editor basically admitted to it, while denying being paid. Melcous cleaned up already--I can't, right now, assess a copyvio. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this and noticed your involvement, Drmies--and Acroterion as well. Are middle schools even considered notable here? I'm thinking AfD, though I can't open one. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, depends on the coverage, right? Drmies (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And we have to stop meeting, etc. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your help with the person/sockpuppets attempting to edit Cliff Cash's page. I thought I should mention that I have received several automated notices that somebody has been trying to log in to Wikipedia using my username. I have to assume that it's the same person. They have failed, and I am not really worried about them actually succeeding; I don't get the impression that they're capable of hacking my account. But it is very annoying, especially since I politely asked them to stop. Is there any way to escalate this? Mehendri Solon (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Mehendri Solon, yeah, they've shown that they're willing to engage in personal harassment. At least one of the socks appropriated part of your username in an attempt to imitate you [81]. I'd start a report at ANI [82], list the different blocked accounts, show their comments at your talk page and share that you believe they're attempting to hack your account. They've used a lot of aliases for a long time at Cliff Cash and other articles, but this recent targeting of you is beyond unacceptable. Just refer to them as the "Cliff Cash vandal." By now there are a few administrators who are familiar with the problem. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breadcrumbs. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8DA:7D4C:8099:C3E4 (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts, Drmies? Latest edits look like fanprose to me. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8DA:7D4C:8099:C3E4 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You know he was my favorite that year? Drmies (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard of him. Thank you, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, can we get a rev/delete at Gary Allen (runner)? I'm surprised it wasn't done already. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. Some people need to really get a life. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I had quite the busy day today. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Has been made absolutely wretched by a couple of COI accounts. Any talk page stalkers want to have a go at this? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, what a mess. I was looking to revert back to September, but even that doesn't alleviate the issues. Nor remove all the photo name-drops.

Snowed in today. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope you have enough bourbon. I saw NYC on the news--looked messy. But if the snow melts, there's solid ground underneath; not so in this article. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, that should be worth a lobster roll. Stay warm, Drmies (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a side of fries and a beer. That's what I saw as the outcome, basically a stub. As for the snow, it'll probably be 6-8 inches, nothing unusual, except that we haven't seen much here the last few winters. Thanks and cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. More breadcrumbs. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B5B5:46AC:4F0D:7F08 (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not just a child, Drmies [83], but another sock at Cliff Cash. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they saw your edit, didn't think much of IP editors (they're inexperienced enough), and then thought better of it. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it was easy enough to trigger them with a minor edit. Drmies, speaking of kids, I just tripped over a bunch of edits by this IP range [84], [85], all unsourced additions and unexplained deletions. No need to wade in now--it looks like a headache. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've just noticed how long this talk page is (nice anti vandal work btw). Would you mind setting up archiving, or just deleting some old stuff? Cheers, —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Matrix. I'm good. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry i saw your comment after i removed my notice on your talk page. I did go back and re-read it and undid my revision. My apologies. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I expect a WP:COI account will restore all the promotional bilge again, at which point I'll request page protection or some such restriction. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll keep an eye out for you! See you around. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a genre that's as bad as school and university articles--ballet companies. Melcous, Drmies, the Houston piece is a mess of unsourced, promotional content and non notable performers, which seems to be the rule rather than an exception. In this case, we can largely thank an edit by a company employee back in 2018. When you have free time, take a look and let me know what you think. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the scissors to it - probably could have removed more, but will see what others think. Thanks Melcous (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. Thank you, Melcous. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits reverting vandalism. It is always a pleasant surprise to see an IP doing my job. ItsCheck (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, ItsCheck. Now it's just a matter of getting them all blocked, not so easy this time of night. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 Good luck reverting vandalism. ItsCheck (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and another temporary account. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:ECCE:7D2C:D24B:CA6F (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It feels more appropriate to say it here rather than in that thread on their talk page - hopefully it won't be a case of a loutsock given the edits are identical. I hope they don't cross that bridge, as it'll probably get burnt behind them pretty quickly. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, when you have the time, I'd appreciate a glance at this. One WP:SPA appears to be using two registered accounts and an IP, and it's gotten to be a bit of a pain keeping track. Cheers and happy March! 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've opened a thread at ANI [86]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This account situation was informed to me by another editor, and is completely unintentional. I was making minor edits as a guest because I noticed that the alumni list was missing on the LAS page then resorted to adding recent content because a notice at the top highlighted that this article had outdated citations and references. So I decided to create an account as it was my first time editing on wikipedia and a profile made it easier to connect with others to troubleshoot issues and clarification of formats. I was unable to log back into my initial account and so made a new one with though the passwords of both seemed to have caused an issue where it is being shown as a three account edit. I sincerely apologise about this whole ordeal. I also dont know what is going on as I am only logged into this one account on my end, which is the one I am submitting this message with. Fanchen886374 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you have no credibility in these quarters. You've used three separate accounts for one purpose, and continue to deny WP:COI. Please don't post at my talk page--you can respond at the ANI thread I've already alerted you to. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bio apparently created and tended by the spouse. Drmies, Melcous, I suppose the first question is whether the subject is notable--I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I'm a sentimental sort. As for the content, it's pretty much free of sources since, what, 2007? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in Google Books, nothing in JSTOR (so no literary criticism). Drmies (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're published by Simon and Schuster, which is worth something. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, and that stopped me from considering deletion. There must be reviews in the popular press. That interview about the dead king in the parking lot is not going to save the article.Drmies (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Ttpdepartment a sock of? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No idea, Someone who's wrong on the internet. Only that they made the requisite ten junk test edits before drafting a promotional bio. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usual mass of longterm and poorly sourced COI contributions--Drmies, Melcous, have a look at your convenience. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've had a go - didn't take the pruning shears to the list of publications, but I do really wish people understood that having a clear list of significant Selected publications is far more effective than trying to ensure every single thing they have ever done is listed! Hope you are well, Cheers Melcous (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Melcous--I trust your choices, and agree re: such lists. Really smart people and their supporters lose all editorial judgment about these things when it's close to home, and tend to throw in the kitchen sink. It's a good bet the IPs will return soon enough, and we'll deal with that then. Hope you're well, too. Best, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also, Drmies. I wasn't surprised when the IP returned--a page lock was inevitable. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. El_C, thanks for locking it; we may come back to you for that. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the article on Genghis Khan’s haplogroups proposes that R1b was the Royal Family lineage based on some corpses that were discovered in Tavan Tolgoi, in the study entitled ‘Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen’s family and her possible kinship with Genghis Khan’.

However, the study itself failed to establish any direct political or biological relationship of these bodies to Genghis Khan, which makes this statement in the Wikipedia article very misleading.

The authors of the article propose that the bodies found were of a Mongolian queen and suggest this woman was a daughter of Genghis Khan, but in the same paragraph the authors also admit that the ages at death of the female corpses do not align with the ages that Genghis Khan’s daughters are recorded to have died, nor the number of children they were recorded as having in their lifetime. After four (admittedly failed) attempts at establishing hypothetical connecting circumstances to Genghis Khan (which the authors of the study admit are impossible due to conflicting historical evidence) they finally try to suggest that these women belonged to the Hongirad/Khongirad/Konyrat clan and even imply that Konyrats were overwhelmingly R1b.

However, genetic studies of the Konyrat people in Kazakhstan (which can be found in the Wikipedia article entitled ‘Y-DNA haplogroups in Kazakh tribes’) who are the direct descendants of the Khongirad of Mongolia, display R1b at an extremely low frequency, occurring in only 2 samples out of 90.

86 out of the 90 Konyrat tested showed they belonged to haplogroup C2c1a1a1, the same haplogroup that Dayan Khan, a descendant of Genghis Khan and khagan of the Yuan dynasty, was also confirmed to carry. In my opinion this failure to confirm a kinship with Genghis Khan needs to be made clearer in the article as the author of this part of the article asserts the R1B hypothesis far too confidently and doesn’t reflect the admissions of doubt that the authors of the study actually included. Tartarfornow (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As explained, WP:NOR and WP:RELIABLE are relevant. We may not add our personal findings or syntheses of others'. Only acceptably sourced content may be included. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait--are you seriously in conversation with a haplogroup editor? Drmies (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. Just someone who who seems to want to add WP:OR. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another article with major sourcing problems that has become target practice for a bunch of new editors, none of whom is actually helping with the root issues. Drmies, any thoughts on how to best handle this? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy shit, it's that "tone" category again, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I semi-protected it: this is crazy. I started cutting a bit but I got things to do. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies. We've discussed this to death in the past, but the same observations apply: some of the new accounts appear to be getting their quick ten edits in, before posting some promotional draft. A lot of them just make a few edits and disappear, which leads one to think that someone's creating accounts to game the system. Or something. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I'm going back through some of the new accounts edit histories. They make their ten tests, then create a spam draft. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to list them. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies: Witchcrafty (talk · contribs); Serendip2b (talk · contribs); Aisha Saleh Fantai (talk · contribs). The last began with the promotional draft before moving on to the test edits. Go figure. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm really fond of Draft:Crusader Talent. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey thank you for checking this out, I'm aware there's a lot of problems with sourcing and I'll be spending the next couple of weeks citing sources and adding to the page and making sure the tone is right for Wikipedia. Used to have an account many years back in school but have no idea what those details are. Witchcrafty (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was speaking to an administrator. That draft is truly dreadful. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh apologies I misinterpreted, regardless I will be working on it to improve it with the help of Tearoom. Sorry if I have caused both of you any upset, it was not my intention. Witchcrafty (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Begin by trimming the crap from your draft rather than adding to it. If your friends/colleagues don't have bios here, then they don't merit mention. The number of subscribers they have is meaningless. Cut everything that's unencyclopedic. It's a red flag of your conflict of interest, and no one takes such drafts seriously. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok noted, will get on that immediately. I merely was referencing what other content organisations had on their pages like OTK, VShojo and Offline TV, so I will remove it now. Do you believe the whole section for members should be removed and kept to a table with citations if they do not have a page?
              • What if there are creators that I'm not friends/colleagues with that are notable people that have yet to have a page made for them? For example, B0aty and Odablock, they were ranked around the same in earnings and followers on the platform Twitch in comparison to creators who do have pages like Mizkif. Both of these creators have ample independent sources regarding them, B0aty more thoroughly so as he has been one of the original voices of Osrs. Is this better compressed down into their impact on Old School RuneScape or would it warrant a page for themselves, I know you have strict rules regarding biographies of living persons so thought best to discuss.
              • Thank you for your help, I sincerely appreciate it. Witchcrafty (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • No listing, no table. The other articles have their own issues, none of them as egregious. If any of these persons are notable enough to merit a standalone bio, then those would have to be written first. The only people who ought to be mentioned are the entity's founder(s) or directors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Understood, I'll remove those in that case then until they qualify to the standards Wiki requires once I'm done with work, thank you for your help. Witchcrafty (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • am not going to game your system, I do alot of editing in Wikipedia Hausa till 2 years ago you can check. I just want to create English article and doing editing that all Aisha Saleh Fantai (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Aside from a few innocuous copy edits, your purpose here appears to have been drafting self promotional pages, which have been deleted by an administrator. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, Drmies: [87]. Ten edits and they're off to the races. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw you undid some of them; I undid some more. People who aren't fluent shouldn't attempt to fix "grammar" issues. Well, an article about a middle school. That will be exciting. I just got an email from the author of Draft:Boyd Magers, complaining about my manners and offering me some advice: " I'm actually appalled that somebody with your temperament would be allowed to volunteer on such an important resource like Wikipedia. I hope that you'll take my advice and better your demeanor." Drmies (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been meaning to speak to you about your temperament. Thank you! 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand, and when you speak I'll listen. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have more questions about some recent edits , Drmies. Will return later--have to go out and don't want to inundate you anyway. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, Drmies. Yeah, we seem to be inundated with new users who aren't well versed in English yet are intent on copy editing. Some of them are treading water until they write their COI or promotional draft, and I wonder if in some cases they're relying on AI tools to cover for their lack of fluency. At any rate, among the articles I've recently encountered that are pin cushions for new editors are Public administration, Coal in Europe and Petrini's. Don't know if any of these need to be locked.
      • Mopping with the faucet open, as the Dutch might say. In that last article I pruned and changed the tag--a notability tag is not going to attract these worthless edits. It's all just really unfortunate. I saw that you and Mr. Ollie both had been working on that public policy thing; I bet all that unverified and excessive content has been in there for years. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a good expression. MrOllie did the heavy lifting there. I see the two of you talked about the same issue. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, MrOllie is not so chatty, haha. Now, about my temperament... I can handle it, I'm in a good mood--I just defeated an 11-year old kid at chess; he must have been out of practice. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know I was messing with you about the temperament business, Drmies. As for the chess business, an eleven-year-old will avenge the loss in other ways, around the age of seventeen, I'd guess. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, late last night I came across [88], who then began editing as [89]. They seem to be well intentioned, but there may need to be some housekeeping re: the extraneous account, and I'm also curious as to all the edits at the Jarrah disambiguation pages, and possible COI at Draft:Salwa Jarrah. That's a lot of stuff, none of which looks very vital at the moment. When you have time, and are sipping on a mint julep, fancy ale or whatever you drink down there. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well well well well well well who'd have thunk it: [90]. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ten edits and *poof* it's a brand new article. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • And, Drmies, what to do about Paul Devlin (filmmaker)? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I went through I think three articles by that John user, including an awful one on some French snowboarded--I can't handle anymore! Drmies (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now's the time for that julep/ale/Tennessee whisky. We needed a shot of sherry on this fine pseudo-spring day. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • And Candide Thovex is awful even after your improvements. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve literally all of the articles on the English Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 13:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After pruning the most commercial "Book" section I've ever seen, I glanced at the history and ended up blocking the main contributor. Perhaps you and Melcous can help prune this a bit? Drmies (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just back from NY. Drmies, let's also have a look at Roger Highfield, and this user [91], who quacks a lot like a sock. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another promotional WP:SPA [92]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, can you take a look at recent edits there that changed population data without a source? More to the point, [93] has been doing that at multiple articles--a lot of their recent edits seem to be focused on inflating Hindu populations, and they generally look disruptive. I can take this to ANI, but I haven't had much luck there of late. Thanks and cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest temporary avatar. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E004:1418:F10B:6EBF (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And another. Seem to be getting knocked offline a lot lately. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:50BE:505F:2AEC:D21A (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering if you have considered archiving some topics on this talk page, as it has gotten pretty long an hard to navigate. Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine, thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[94]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes here--Drmies, probably a lot more of the soapboxing can be cut. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it needs an experienced editor. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Thanks. The business can be covered in a paragraph or two. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Though you're an IP, I appreciate your efforts on fighting vandalism. Keep it coming. -- Wesoree (talk·contribs) 15:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Wesoree. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good job at Bilbo Baggins. Keep it up! – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Fewer barnstars, more assistance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not sorry, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Well, I guess I understand, but Mrs. Drmies just walked in, and I told her that I don't really mind this loss: they worked hard, it was a good game. Congrats to your very tall men who shoot the ball very well! Drmies (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your youngsters were terrific. They just had the misfortune to meet a juggernaut. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On another front, Drmies, HeddaLettis returns [95]. I've missed this [96]; [97]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time and an inclination, Melcous, this was messed up last month by a promotional WP:SPA. I don't know whether the whole thing ought be reverted, or just cherry-picked to bring it to a passably neutral version. Hope you're well! 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message to me at WP:AIV. I've posted an answer to you there. JBW (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Seen. Much appreciated, JBW. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, JBW (and I'll bring Drmies in, because we've discussed similar stuff before), that in recent months I've encountered an uptick in foreign language contributors who can not write a coherent sentence in English, without using chatgpt. They may edit under the radar for months, relying on copied and pasted content, minor or non-creative contributions (adding sources, overlinking, adding short descriptions, etc) or using AI phrasing that allows a certain amount of cover. This is difficult to stem because it's not vandalism, and on the face of it seems constructive, but it does degrade quality. I've no solution, except to suggest the creation of a new noticeboard to deal with issues of competence, as an alternative to AIV or ANI, either of which are a bit draconian, except in the most egregious cases. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah. Ha, I have no solution either, and while we could run CU on every single one of these accounts (since my suspicion is that these are indicative of sock farms), that's not allowed. It's tough. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • By an interesting coincidence, I saw this immediately after posting a message to an editor who does not seem to be a native speaker of English, and whose main contribution to Wikipedia so far has been to introduce errors in English where there weren't any before.
        For years I have thought that there's a quite irrational gulf between on the one hand AIV, where reports are usually dealt with fairly summarily, and on the other hand all the other admin noticeboards, where any report risks either being ignored until archived, or else blown up completely disproportionately into a major drama. I therefore do in fact quite often deal with reports at AIV which shouldn't really be there. My impression is that all the admin noticeboards were originally intended to function more the way that AIV does than the way the others do: a place to ask for one administrator to assess the situation and decide whether to take action, though I haven't thoroughly searched through the ancient editing history to make 100% sure whether that impression is right.
        Drmies, in case you are interested.JBW (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, JBW, per the distinction between AIV and other boards. I'll sometimes drop a report there that may not belong, in hopes of a quick response, because there are few other options. I think of COI as a noticeboard where reports go to die. At any rate, this makes me more enthusiastic to propose a new noticeboard, as described above, that would rely on admins to review competence complaints; guidelines would need to be hammered out, lest everyone report everyone else for bad editing. That would be a most interesting cluster%*&#. Drmies, I didn't realize there were limits on the use of CU, even if there's a suspicion of sock farming. Learn something every day. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, yes there are limits, and I'm probably walking quite close to them on a regular basis. One needs reasons; we can't just go fishing--there's a shortcut for that, I believe, and maybe even an emoji. JBW, funny you should mention this: I remember, before I got the bit, seeing "not enough warnings" on AIV all the time, even when it was abundantly clear that someone should be blocked on the spot--as if all it took to get blocked was four warnings, and no judgment, but without the four warnings there was no block, and explanations at AIV served no purpose. In return, I often find myself at ANI looking for the threads that actually can be decided quickly, one way or another. So that middle ground, I think I've been walking it quite a bit. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I agree with what you say about "not enough warnings" at AIV, but you are treading on dangerous ground mentioning it to me, unless you want to risk unleashing a whole flood of gripes about how many admins handle reports at AIV. With a major effort I will restrict myself to mentioning just one. For two years an IP address has been the source of nothing but vandalism. Throughout that time, the vandalism has frequently returned to articles which have been vandalised before, and it's always the same kind of vandalism, in some cases repeating exactly the same edits as 18 months earlier. Obviously it's one person. There are many gaps in the editing history, sometimes for days, sometimes for as much as a couple of months, but the vandal always comes back. There have been blocks from time to time, varying from 31 hours to a week. There's a report on it at AIV. Now, without a shadow of a doubt, if this had been a user with an account, they would have been indefinitely blocked long ago. So what becomes of the AIV report? If one of the majority of administrators who commonly patrol AIV see it, either of two things: (1) The report is declined because of "insufficient recent activity". (i.e. the vandal hasn't edited for a few hours.) (2) A 31 hour block; we can't do more, in case a different editor on the same IP address might be inconvenienced by the block. (Yes, it could happen; after years of only one person using the IP address, and making hundreds of vandalism edits, it could happen that by an amazing coincidence an innocent and constructive editor happens along for the first time ever just when a block has been placed. Could, but how likely?) A 31 hour block on a vandal who often takes breaks of up to a couple of months anyway is totally pointless. If it were a user with an account, they would have been indef-blocked long ago, so why does not using an account give the vandal the privilege of carrying on vandalising, provided they have short breaks from time to time? But it happens all the time. Really, all the time. JBW (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JBW, per the report at AIV, [98] has continued. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Bbb23. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's another WP:CIR account [99] that can't be reported to AIV, but continues to edit cluelessly. As for blocking IPs who game the system, I can't edit in transit between CT and NY, because all the ranges have been blocked. So I wait until I return home. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Drmies [100]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your comment about not being able to edit in transit because of blocked ranges. It seems much more likely than not that someone with as much experience of editing as you have has made a deliberate decision not to create an account, and therefore you may have no interest in the following comments, in which case you will of course ignore them, but I offer them for you to consider if you choose to. I started out as an IP editor, without an account. I didn't see any reason to create an account, since I could edit perfectly well without one. Very likely I would have continued in that way for many years, were it not for the fact that one day I found I couldn't edit at the local library, because of a block on the IP address. Back home, I created an account, intending to use it only if I suffered from a block again, as I didn't see any reason to bother to log in to the account, since I could edit perfectly well without doing so. However, after a while I started using the account, more or less because it was there, so I might as well use it. In fact, as time went on I discovered more and more advantages in having an account. You probably know what a lot of them are, and may not care much about them, but here are a few of them. I have never again been unable to edit because of blocks, even though there have been times when not just the library, but my home IP address has been rangeblocked. Having an account makes it easier for other editors to contact you if they want to, because they can use methods such as pings. Very often editors don't even bother to take the extra bit of trouble needed to contact an IP editor at all. Even worse, as I'm sure you know, is the fact that many editors treat IP editors with contempt, as though they were automatically vandals or criminals, or even if they don't go that far, at the least they tend not to listen to anything an IP editor says. And so on and so on... I gradually found more and more advantages to having an account. Well, very likely you know all that, and have decided that even so you don't want an account, in which case that's absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned. (I'm not one of the editors who think that IP editors are an inferior breed.) However, I just offer you these comments to consider if you feel like doing so. JBW (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This [101] will sit, molder, and eventually be archived by a bot. Much of the noticeboard business is a waste of time. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The COI noticeboard is far worse than some others, such as AN, ANI, and ANEW, for reports just sitting there and nothing being done. Maybe I'll have a look at that one tomorrow (I don't have time today) but even if I do look at it, I don't promise there will be anything useful I will be able to do; very often there isn't. JBW (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If nothing else, you'll find Ibru family entertaining. It's a step or two removed from a TMZ segment, or the old Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • JBW, I have addressed the IP vs. registered topic many times. I have an account, with over 50,000 edits, a history of article creation and some experience with featured articles. I rarely add content anymore, because I devote that energy to writing for publication, and mostly edit as an IP now for reasons both practical and eccentric. I'm the subject of a bio here, and would prefer not to have vandals connect the dots, which it would be easier to do from the registered account. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's really interesting. Thanks for letting me know. JBW (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Ibru report, the COI noticeboard doesn't disappoint. It's toothless. I'm through, JBW. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Melcous: [102]. COI noticeboard is absolutely worthless, and everyone is tired of hearing from me. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you accusing me of "inflating population data" when every single edit related to population I make is backed up with a more recent statistic? They aren't unsourced or poorly sourced at all, and if I did forget to add a source, instead of lazily reverting edits, you could simply find the source I used online. BasedGigachad (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how it works--it's your responsibility to supply reliable sources for all content you add, which you're still not doing.

Drmies, I'm all but through for now. You've interacted a little with this account, and the most recent edits and page creation have the same issues as before--one can't find a link between the content and the sources provided, as at City Council of Atlantic City. I can take this to ANI, but I'm tired of wasting my time--the site is inundated by competence issues, and I don't see resolve to deal with them. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I've asked for more eyes at BLP for their little campaign against Marty Small Sr.. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I've looked a little further at the edit history, and it's dreadful. Personal opinion, promotional tone, unsourced and sometimes spurious content, and addition of sources that have no relation to content. The volume of deleted warnings at their talk page in just a few months alone is a red flag. Thanks for the one week block--I'd advocate for much longer, especially after the accusation that I'm your sock. Okay, back to semi-retirement. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• More of same. Would you like to have a look at their edits since coming off the block, Drmies, or shall I drop by ANI? Where a report will molder until it's archived. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I give you another incarnation of HeddaLettis (talk · contribs), the latest sneak being [103]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha, "clean this up". Thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you--it's always a request, never a demand. They're also COI-ing all over the place, without the requisite transparency. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No you misunderstand: that's why I put it in quotes. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, that gem of informed discourse. Thanks for clarifying! My memory waxes and wanes. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently found you and want to say hello! I love to see constructive IP editors, so I present to you a kitten.

QwertyForest (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, could use some help here. User was unblocked, but they really are out of control. My ANI report is buried under more dramatic threads. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm as far as I'm concerned they can do whatever they want, but in draft space...BTW I'm not so concerned about the COI tag; they're just a misguided fan. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--let them mess around in draft space indefinitely. Misguided fan, okay, but of a determination that is untroubled by guidelines. That's a heck of an edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even see this crap [104]. That'll show me. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies. Disappointed that a half week after initiating a report [105], this drags on....I did a Google book search, standard for a subject that predates the internet, and found nothing. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what can I say. Policy-wise there's not a lot to do here, but I will make sure that something that looks like that will not get into main space. The editor is also completely unwilling to listen and learn. On the other hand, I got a new old Neil Young record, so I'm good. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are spiraling, but as long as they stay out of article space it's harmless. Nothing wrong with new old Neil Young. I located my copy of After the Gold Rush at the studio this afternoon. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies--your thoughts re: [106] appreciated. Looks like a paid p.r. account to me. Thanks and cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And while I'm at the keyboard, Drmies, are these edits [107] constructive? I'm not seeing the problem with the previous descriptions. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell. Brought the latter to ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah--I saw that Ad Orientem is on the case, fortunately. Damn I think I need to change the needle on my record player; Toast is skipping just when it starts to rock. User:78.26, this makes me sad. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not want a sad Drmies. A worn needle will cause distortion and premature record wear, but not usually skipping. What turntable are you using? Is it skipping multiple times, skipping one groove, or repeating? We’ll get to the bottom of the world’s problems. You deal with user issues, I’ll deal with sound reproduction. Sounds fair. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I blocked that other account: I think you were right. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies and Ad Orientem, thank you. My late reply here is the fault of northeast corridor travel. It's been an awful month to take Amtrak out of NYC, with multiple electrical problems, and the train tonight was delayed three hours and fifteen minutes. Home at 1:00 AM and grateful for small favors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Holy moly what a mess! I'm so sorry to hear that. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:78.26, I see your point now; the needle skips always on the same point on one album (Odeon Budokan) and it skipped once on Toast, which I've only played once, BUT I think I typed this while I was wondering why the "silent" part on the albums were so noisy. I suppose I need to look closely at the album to see if there's any damage there, and I guess I can adjust the weight on the needle? My turntable is the cheapest of the cheap, an Ion that my friend gave me. Drmies (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, is there a noticeable difference between listening to vinyl and digital? I recall reading a long piece years ago in the Times about Young's crusade to properly restore sound quality to his recordings. On another matter, our friend at Draft:Orpington & District Amateur Boxing Club seems quite out of control now, not only in that piece, but persistently adding original research to other articles and apparently using IPs as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I really try not to be a turntable snob, but I think the problem is indeed your turntable. Ion makes some ok turntables, but if it is one of the cheaper models they sell, you probably have a tonearm compliance problem. Does your turntable have a counterweight on the tonearm? (in other words, can you adjust the weight of the tonearm by adjusting at the back of the arm?) The cheapest models use a poor cartridge which uses a poorly manufactured sapphire needle, which wears out very quickly. Anyway, the cheapest tonearms and cartridges can't handle quick changes in dynamics, particularly strong bass parts. In other words, what one might consider the "good parts". If you have one of Ion's better models, throw what I just said away. But it certainly applies to all the Crosley/Victrola crud that sells incredibly well. Unlike what YouTube says, it won't kill your vinyl on first play. But it's not doing it any favors either. And it won't take too many repeated plays before true damage occurs. I recommend that you spend $150 and get a Audio Technica LP60 turntable. It'll play your records, won't damage them, and unless you want to invest real money into a proper amp/speaker setup, will sound as good as any other turntable for "normal" LPs and 45s. It won't play 78s, so it's still useless. Oh wait, I'm trying not to be an insufferable turntable snob, aren't I. Sigh. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

78.26, I have no problem with your discourse here, as it's pleasant and involves Drmies. However, the price you may pay for being familiar at this page is to be pinged when I'm looking for administrative backup. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're always welcome to reach out to me, but Drmies is four times smarter and about eight times faster than I am! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.26, ha it took me a few days to get this--I don't know about this smartness but I'll take a compliment any time I see one. Yes, I am sure I have a cheap Ion. I'm listening to the record right now (again, it's great if you love that old Neil Young), and it's a little skip consistently at the same place, and I see no damage on the disc. I just increased the pressure (?)--ah OK that didn't matter. I'm going to save up for a new record player. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Honestly, I can't really tell. Well, I think I can tell whether I'm listening to a CD or a record--CDs have a larger dynamic range, and I think I can hear that on some albums (like 90125) but that may just be my imagination. Vinyl is supposed to sound warmer--but I have a 90s Sony amplifier which I believe colors the sound in a decisively loud, transparent, and clear manner, as opposed to an older amp. So it could all just be imagination. I bought the Odeon album (which is really cool) because Neil Young in his infinite wisdom decided to release that only on vinyl. Same with Roxy: Tonight's the Night Live, which is fantastic. But 78 may feel differently. I think the truth is this: sure they sound different but you need a high-quality stereo and a good set of ears to hear that. I don't have a very discerning aural palate. I'll have a look at your boxer. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My ear is not that discerning, either, and I think it's a bit humorous that anyone would seek to distinguish a superior sonic version of fuzz and distortion. But I do like it and the great tragic anthem a lot. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the boxer goes, they're not going to stop adding unsourced content until they're blocked. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies, 173.24.129.133 (talk · contribs) is back from the three month hiatus, and writing about himself. 2601:19E:4100:710:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And happy day of labor. 2601:19E:4100:710:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm yes, thank you. I kind of feel like I should have eaten hot dogs. How were the lobster rolls? Drmies (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good, but they've gotten as pricey as steak, so we enjoy in moderation. 2601:19E:4100:710:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tossing the old computer prior to moving, so it's unlikely there will be any more edits from 2601:Bob. Cheers, 2601:19E:4100:710:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]