The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking care of the socking here. Your hard work is appreciated. JeffSpaceman (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting blocked, unblocked, reblocked, and unblocked again for vandalism someone on my IP committed. I don't know why this is happening, but I think you originally banned it? Thanks. 107.0.17.203 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)107.0.17.203[reply]

Hi DQ. Just wanted to thank you for moving my comment to your talk page. Hope everything works out OK. Best regards. 64.40.54.192 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cia'sPeeingpussy should be blocked because their username is a violation of the username policy. Thanks! Give the reason "{{UsernameHardBlocked}}". 216.55.112.115 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @216.55.112.115: We do not block as punishment. That will be considered in bad faith, because that username has been changed to DASL51984 (also AmandaNP can't get this in time). 1394ochi (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mind taking a peek at this? It seems he's at it again. Rusted AutoParts 03:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AmandaNP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sadfatandalone (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the DeltaQuadBot page, there are two unedited messages by IP users. Please respond to them. 86.159.13.142 (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was backed up by reliable sources that Black Lives Matter is anti-Semitic: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.58.55.220 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per his previous blocks due to sock puppetry, the above IP has made the same edits as his original and sock accounts. Right now, as I tagged one of his talk page creations for deletion (CSD G5), he suddenly removed it immediately without clicking the button. I suspect the IP to be a sock of Janagewen. Can you please block him? Very appreciated. 66.87.65.145 (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of sockpuppetry was deemed completely without merit when it was reported. Check this edit. 73.202.53.43 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was looking through the Amber Heard page, and noticed some info on her personal life and events including domestic violence are not updated, and since you were the last user to update this page, I thought I'd tell you to check it out.

https://people.com/movies/amber-heard-not-silenced-johnny-depp-claims-accusations-hoax/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6768665/Johnny-Depp-claims-Amber-Heards-domestic-abuse-allegations-false.html

Some articles worth noting.

Thanks!

-Ale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyaxx (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you have protected Wilma Archer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) since 7 March 2020. Since the COI editors (Ottosherman, Frankiegrimes, Rubix1234, and FrancisTheHelping) got indefinitely blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ottosherman, I would like to request the article unprotected. 124.87.179.159 (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the disruption came from IPs, so no, I will not be unprotecting it. Edit protected requests can be made on the talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In Special:MobileDiff/960277986 in which your bot sended a message to SQL, it said "agian" instead of "again". Can you fix that typo please? --107.242.113.2 (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amanda!

You asked me to send you a list with valid links for 'Naked and Funny' article (for restoring it).

As the article said the Naked and Funny show was sold in 40 countries. Some links about it are below:

1. [9] & [10]

    Maybe I can't determine the creditiblity of this as it's behind a paywall. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. [11] (NSFW link)

    No There is no information here...just views of videos -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. [12]

    No A screengrab of a website that is not updated is not an appropriate source. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. [13]

    No Single line mentions do not help pass WP:GNG. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. [14] Here are many headers and articles in other TV-magazines about Naked and Funny.

    No A google search does not provide me an article to see if it's going to be a good source. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. Newsletters:

   [15]

   [16]

    No Single line mentions do not help pass WP:GNG. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7. IMDB Type sources:

   [17]

   [18]

   [19]

    No See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8. Wikis & References back to the original deleted article:

   [20]

   [21]

   [22]

   [23]

    No See WP:UGC. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingly ask to check it and restore our article (Naked and Funny). In this case we would like to add all links and refresh it with new facts. Also it could be better if we could add this article to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hidden_camera_television_series Thanks in advance. Looking forward for the answer Helena 6666 (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So overall, I won't be restoring the article with this sourcing as it doesn't meet our policies. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Amanda @wikipedia/DeltaQuad, In case of Wiki's policy I've prepared links that would comply with the rules.

1. Reviews dated 05 and 06 of July 2020: [24][25]

    No per WP:SELFCITE, not considered reliable except for basic data. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. WorldScreens (official resource about TV. All this links I've got from Ricardo Guise - president of WS ^[1]):

   [26]

   [27]

   [28]

   [29]

   Again  no, single line mentions do not help WP:GNG.

3. [30]

    No, single line mentions do not help WP:GNG.

4. One more selling in the world on Amazon: [31]

    No, not allowed per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial sources#Amazon

5. Russian language source about cinematography (not free as wikipedia and Imdb) - Kinopoisk: [32]

    No, this will only back up the basic information about the film, and the user reviews are WP:UGC

6. Russian source about TV-shows and comedy shows: [33]

    Yes, there may be some useful content here.

7. Russian news-portal Rumbler.com: [34]

    Yes, there may be some useful content here.

8. Article on Info portal about our official sources: [35]

   There is absolutely no information here, you can't cite nothing.

Kindly ask to restore article as it could help people to find all information about this Show. Thanks in advance! Helena 6666 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complete lack of proper sourcing even doing my own searching, I will  not be restoring the article. If you have further concerns or disputes, you will need to file a deletion review request. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Log/2020 July 16. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Helena 6666 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AmandaNP! I'm writing directly to you since I see you protected the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan page. I'm not sure if SPI is the best venue for this, but Keywan faramarzi is evading a block with a new account Keywankomala. The new account created what appears to be an autobiography at Kayvan Faramarzi. @AmandaNP:

On June 25, 2020 Sportstir was suspended^[1] for edit warring with me and especially ISS246 in the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Article.

I haven't worked much on that article for the past year, but when I made a few edits on September 29, they immediately reverted them and demanded I discuss on the talk page, although I posted a detailed explanation in the edit summary. This is the same edit warring pattern as in 2020--revert another editor's edit, demand discussion on the talk page, argue on the talk page, and then continue to revert the edits. You can see here their latest string of reverts at the top of the history for the article^[2]

Because this is a continuation of the earlier edit warring case, I was hoping you could look into it.

By the way, I believe Sportstir is a sockpuppet. There have been several sockpuppets by the same person blocked who engaged in exactly the same behavior in this article (Patricia Moorhead)^[3] and the Psychology article (BrokenRecordsAgain)^[4].

Thank you for your assistance. Psyc12 (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah nobody is edit warring with you Psyc12. You and Iss246 came in yesterday to the industrial psychology article for some reason and both in tandem and remarkably at the same time again, as if it was organised between you both offline, decided to remove long term and well sourced material from the article page. Then when I reverted your really bold editing and invited discussion on the edits you want to make, you both avoided it and instead come here and accuse me of edit warring! Sportstir (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't encountered the user Sportstir, with whom you have dealt previously, in a year. [S]he has returned to once again undo my edits. [S]he recently reversed several of my edits in a pattern similar to that of users Mrm7171, Lighteningstrikers, and Patriciamoorehead, who have worked assiduously to reverse my edits before they were excluded from WP. Sportstir ignored the justifications I posted when I edited a narrow section of the i/o psychology entry. Her/his defense is that Psyc12 and I edited at about the same time as if we were a tag team. In my case, my re-starting my edits of that narrow section of the i/o psychology entry was a result of learning that Patriciamoorehead, another user who had has been unrelenting in reversing my edits, was excluded from the WP community. It is difficult for me to edit when someone who is single-mindedly reversing my edits to the exclusion of accomplishing more worthwhile goals on WP. I ask you to do something to get Sportstir to stop reversing my edits. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Psyc12 and Iss246 only edit on similar articles and in tandem coming online together which I thought was meatpuppetry. They both try and downplay IWO psychology's role in occupational stress and occupational health/wellbeing which is absurd and completely contradicting all of the reliable sources. I have asked them to discuss on the talk page their desire to add such bold edits and remove swathes of well sourced long standing text but they refuse. I remember this occurred at the occupational stress article where admittedly I was blocked as well as Iss246 being blocked too I think. Sportstir (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak for Psyc12. This is what I have to say. Sportstir inflates the role of i/o psychology in occupational stress research. I/o psychology has had a role but the role should not be inflated. If Sportstir had his/her way, i/o psychology would supplant epidemiology, occupational medicine, and occupational health psychology as the central discipline in research on job stress. I/o psychology, which already has an enormous wing span with performance and performance appraisal, job analysis, job design, recruitment and testing, compensation, climate and culture, teamwork, leadership, goal setting, and more, cannot be the leader in research in job stress/work-health interface. It has too many other subject areas to research. Of course, i/o makes a contribution to job stress research. But it is a relatively small part of i/o's portfolio. Moreover, Spector has written about the resistance in i/o psychology to accepting publications on job stress, probably because most i/o psychologists in the 20th century were allied with management. It has mainly been in the 21st century that i/o psychology has come around to show an interest in the impact of job stress on worker health. I/o psychologists' brethren in occupational health psychology have had a salutary effect on i/o psychology.

I spell out what I am not saying, lest my remarks be misinterpreted. I am not saying that in the 20th century, i/o was completely uninterested in job stress's impact on worker health. There were figures like Kornhauser who wanted to help workers rather than management. But he was a relatively rare figure.

Sportstir deleted a fact that the models of the stress process, a process that in the 21st century, i/o psychologists study, come, from outside the field of i/o psychology. [S]he deleted my reference to that fact. The ideas about the stress process come from social psychology and sociology, of all places. Not i/o psychology. Sportstir would have the reader think that the idea of the study of job stress comes ex cathedra from the minds of i/o psychology.

I think Sportstir is in cahoots with Patriciamoorehead or Mrm7171 or Brokenrecordsagain or Lighteningstrikers or is one of them, judging from how [s]he hounds me and reverts edits like a computer-savy Inspector Javert. Iss246 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I get my membership back? I don't have another account. Please allow me to return to Wikipedia. I hope the decision is not too harsh. I just hope to cancel the ban on my membership, and I promise I will not publish an article again. I swear to you, I don't have another account. Please understand and reconsider. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.131.109 (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the ping(s) and thank you for letting me know what I was doing (I didn't realise I was sending notifications). Anyway, I am checking some old talk page protections. In your case this is about the relatively recent Talk:International Court of Justice, Talk:World Bank and Talk:International Monetary Fund, the only thing that looked out of place is that the corresponding articles aren't protected anymore and I wasn't sure yet, if these ones really needed some consideration. I am rechecking the list from time to time, so if you decide to remove some protections (or to add them to the articles) I will consider them already dealt with and there's no need to reply, otherwise it would be nice if you let me know that the matter was already considered, here or on my talk page. Thank you and sorry again for the disturb and the confusion. 176.247.159.174 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amanda. Another in a long string of sockpuppets arose today on Sundayclose's talk page. Questionsandanswer is continuing the personal attacks on me and ISS246, making the same arguments they have been making for years. Can you help? Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=1052798635&oldid=1052798523Psyc12 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questionsandanswer has been banned for sockpuppetry.^[5] Sorry to have bothered you with this. Psyc12 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mined Youtsc RS Creator and Owner YoutacrsVARs (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how was your day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.230.213 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda, could you please have a look at this user’s talk page and contributions and decide if their talk page access should be revoked please? This user is here since January, but almost every single edits in Wikipedia:Sandbox have been edited 171 times, according to WP:PGAME (who was blocked). Most of this user's contributions while blocked have been focused around on talk page edits, but they focused on unconstructive edits and a spam account. This editor doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia (i.e. it's not a host for stuff they've made up) and they seem to lack the competence to edit here constructively. There's also a load of edits by this user which will need cleaning up. Thanks, BeeSpeed1989 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeeSpeed1989, it's unclear why you are using this subpage instead of AmandaNP's main talk page, and why you consider Noesleis's contributions after the block to be so severely problematic that you had to make this request. Looking at your baseless threat of talk page access removal and your user page's content [now fixed] makes me question the constructiveness of your edits. Please find articles to improve instead; the Task Center and the community portal contain ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These have remained protected for about 4.5 years after some kind of outbreaks in July and September 2018. Do you believe it's still necessary? All three are subjects of legitimate interest, and FAQs/edit notices can be used (maybe) to manage traffic from would-be correspondents with the article subjects. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ip blocked Ludoke (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With absolutely zero context, I can't assist. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for fixing a typo.. So odd, didn't know anyone took Wikipedia so seriously to block people for free. Esquivelmichelle (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You have not been blocked on the account you made this message from. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 14:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's an incredibly condescending, pompous reply from you. Let's clarify a few things -

1. According to the appeal screen information, "Deltaquadbot" is a bot. So you have a non-human deciding to block me? That might explain the failure to consider or respond to the information I gave in my previous messages in the appeal thread.

2. I already explained that I'm not using a VPN, and that I don't know how 'proxies' function - you have chosen to ignore that and respond to me as though I do have that knowledge. You could have just explained what you meant and how/why it's happened, as I requested, but instead you chose to have 'brick wall' me. Because, quite obviously, you have assumed I'm guilty of something.

3. You insist that I "clear the proxy" despite me telling you I don't know how or why it is in place. I have no idea how one 'clears a proxy'.

4. You say I don't have any right/ability to edit Wikipaedia - yet I was able to contribute an edit to another page 10 months ago - my first and only time - and it was accepted and published without any of this nonsense.

5. Your final response belies an attitude of petty, arrogant bureaucracy and unnecessary superiority.

Congratulations, you've made me decide that I wouldn't use Wikipaedia again now if I was paid to.

You pompous, unpleasant ass. Pegasusphil (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pegasusphil, I saw your question on my talk page about how to create citations, which is relatively straightforward – see Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/2. But I also see your comments here. Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and it's essential for us to treat each other with respect no matter how frustrated or annoyed we are. If you have some interest in continuing to edit Wikipedia, I'd suggest editing your comment to tone it down and remove the insults, so that you can try to work toward some sort of resolution. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, and I appreciate your help with my citation query. Regarding that other admin, I was responding after receiving a block for absolutely no reasonable reason (I did nothing wrong at all) and despite asking for help and some guidance on the situation all I got was a superior and arrogant attitude and several very unhelpful, condescending and accusatory replies from the admin who blocked me. How do I respond to someone who basically accused me of being a malicious user? And who clearly assumed - wrongly - that I knew all the rules and processes for editing Wikipedia.

With the citation issue, all I want to do is reinstate an entry I added - totally factual and legitimate - describing the existence of a song/video (which wrote and created myself) that's directly relevant to the page in question. But my edit has been removed saying it needs a citation - so as far as I can see I'm being asked to prove my own work? I don't understand how to make this entirely harmless edit without getting blocked or accused of having a malicious IP address. But I'll follow your link and hopefully it'll help me.

Thanks. Pegasusphil (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no justification for insulting people here. You can explain reasons and concerns without being rude.

If you want to add or correct information about something you're involved in, such as a song or video you created, you need to write on the talk page for the article instead of editing directly. See Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, though to be fair I was treated badly by the admin first.

I've been replying to you from my phone so far - but I Pegasusphil (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think my reply was curtailed?

I was about to say I tried to reply to you from my desktop PC and got a message saying I was blocked (again) for "block evasion". I'm baffled. The rules are too arcane and I just seem to be blocked at every turn. No idea why. I haven't "evaded" anything. I get the sense that Wiki just wants to exclude me and I have no clue as to why. Pegasusphil (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]