User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 13

So, any suggestions for some good material on Netflix I can binge watch? I think I am going to have a lot of free time for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping

WP:BN, including its recently archived threads. You are losing serious and longtime contributors. I have never been more than an OK editor, and on a good day a passably competent admin who knows what buttons to push when someone yells "Cleanup needed in aisle six!" But when you start hemorrhaging people like those named above and 28bytes, WJBscribe, Floquenbeam and... well you can read the list for yourself; these are people the project will not easily replace. I really hope I am wrong and the WMF reaches out to the community and settles this business in a way we can all live with. But as I noted above, two weeks have now passed with no constructive response to our concerns. All the best... -Ad Orientem (talk

) 18:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ping Jimbo Wales correctly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Genuinely sad to see you flipping the bit back. You were one of the good admins. And hopefully you'll be able to be one again once this shitstorm subsides and people fix the damage they've caused. Respect. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• re Netflix. I'm partial to NCIS - 15 seasons would keep you busy for a while. If you're into that DC or Marvel type of stuff - Supergirl, Flash, DC's Legends of Tomorrow, Daredevil, Agents of SHIELD< Marvel Defenders, Luke Cage, Iron Fist (some of these only had 2 or 3 seasons). There's also a fair number of the DC and Marvel movies available.

and thanks for everything you've contributed. — Ched :  ?  — 18:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You were one of the first admins I ever had the pleasure to interact with on this site. I'm seriously taken aback to see you go. :'( (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everybody. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Very sad to see this – I learnt a lot from watching you as an admin; you are a huge loss to the project. Britishfinance (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hat tip. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your servant (bowing). -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Not Netflix, but if you've got Amazon, Good Omens has been turned into a TV show. Not as wonderful as the book, but pretty good so far. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to see this as well. Hopefully things change enough that you'll reconsider at some point. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, thanks to all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• This feels like the end of an era. You have played such an important role in reintegrating me back into the community after my two year respite. Thank you so much for all you’ve done.*cries*—NØ 19:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• I just rebuilt my studio for audio and video production. Low tech for the most part, but it will help me with my business, and seems like a better use of my time. Wikipedia is a lesser place with you giving up the bit, but it became a lesser place when the community was subjugated to the status of "free labor" rather than "volunteers", so it isn't our fault, is it? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So... your telling me my prospects for unemployment insurance are not good? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, you are eligible for up to 60% of the weekly salary you earned as admin until you find a new admin job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... any idea where they keep the cheap whiskey? I don't think my unemployment insurance is going to cover the good stuff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Genuinely sad to see this, You were another great admin here, Thank you for your service (and for your contributions here), I wish you all the best, Take care, –Davey2010^Talk 19:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Sad to see this but it's for the right reasons. As for shows, they are not current, but my favorite American TV shows: The Mentalist, White Collar, Burn Notice, Suits and Friends. Books (fiction): Dan Brown and Daniel Silva. Enigma^msg 19:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Can’t believe nobody’s mentioned
  The Office of course. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs
  ) 21:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually I think I am going to start with Outlander (TV series). -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Do give Lucifer a look. The Angel of Death as an assistant detective with psychological issues -- priceless. — JFG ^talk 12:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wow. I don't vote very often at RfA, but I do remember voting in favor of you taking up the mop a few years ago. I don't know Fram, or any of the circumstances surrounding that, and frankly don't have the time to look into it. But one thing I learned about you is to trust your judgment. I contribute a little bit here and there around the project, but your decision has kind of tilted reality for me. Regardless, you are one of the good ones, and you will be missed. As for shows, I'm a bit old school and don't really binge watch (the last one I did was Band of Brothers (miniseries), but I did stumble upon Stranger Things last night, the first three episodes were damn good. And of course, there is Suits (American TV series), which I always found highly entertaining. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

June

cornflowers

• some wildflowers of thanks and understanding --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for your service. Hope to see you around down the road. Best, Spencer^T•C 16:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for all the assistance you have provided me throughout the years. For my money,
  Bojack Horseman represent the best of Netflix's original content, and The Good Place is the best active network sitcom. Stormy clouds (talk
  ) 08:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for being an excellent admin. I don't know exactly what is available on Netflix in your part of the world, but the German series Dark is very, very good. --bonadea contributions talk 08:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of
  CSD criterion G8 has been tightened
  such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of
  CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly
  to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF)
  significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board
  .

To my pleasant surprise, recent developments in

Sorry that you had to step down. You were so much help over the years.

Bearian (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please help me to move an userspace draft about an award-winning composer into article space? I would appreciate this a lot if you could review it or tell me who could review the article. The draft is about Wojciech Waleczek—a succesful pianist from Poland whose numerous achievements deserve to be celebrated with his own Wikipedia page. He took 3rd prize at the Premio Mario Zanfi competition and was the absolute winner of the 4th Franz Liszt National Piano Competition—to name just a few of his accomplishments. Mr Waleczek already has his articles on German and Polish Wikipedia. Hope to hear back from you. Regards, AngelOfDestiny (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi AngelOfDestiny. It appears that this has already been handled by another editor. Congratulations on your new article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. ;) AngelOfDestiny (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Federalist Society. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Danfrosty1 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

...And may there be many more resysops to come. GAB^gab 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks GAB. And yeah. Everybody has to do what they think is right. But IMO the emergency is over. Que appropriate sound effects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The nightmare is over! GAB^gab 01:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back. Thanks for asking tough, incisive questions and helping shed light on the current improving status of the crisis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was upset to hear that you resigned, but I am glad that you are back now and you will make Wikipedia a better place. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Glad to know that you are back.

Welcome back Ad Orientem!, –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you all. Hopefully we won't have to go through this again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a new iteration of Wikidestruction vandal, or the "reverted some good faith edits" user, to block: 2A00:23C6:6583:1C00:3D75:F908:5414:B2A0 using their favourite edit summary too. Ss112 18:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week. Haven't pushed that button in a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, I shrunk the MP Image you added to width=120, puts it more aligned with the OTD image; if there was already some discussion (I can't find one) about why this should be larger, feel free to revert! — xaosflux ^Talk 19:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No issues. I was actually just looking to shrink it when you beat me to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you please block user:2804:431:CFF2:AF01:C91C:6A17:88C5:5C2B for vandalism. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 31 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

They are back under user:2804:431:cfd8:1740:195c:26f9:603e:5319 . 99.53.112.186 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and page protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

user:2601:940:4380:490:4cc:6621:42ca:15ab just vandalized as you were responding to my report. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention, they seem to have hit many filters. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, AO! While I did read the threads, I still personally don't really understand the issue as a whole. All I really know is that one administrator was blocked by an outside source, with some people agreeing with the block itself and some people disagreeing. As a basic understanding, it seems like the core of the issue is that any of the alleged issues with the administrator in question should have been handled locally on the English Wikipedia, but I'm sure it goes deeper than that. Amaury • 17:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated but you basically nailed it. The WMF was doing stuff that was widely seen as a serious threat to the traditional autonomy of the community here. There have always been a handful of areas where by mutual agreement it was understood that the WMF had jurisdiction. But their actions, which at least initially they defended, were very problematic. Without saying so directly they have effectively backed down on the most serious issue. Some of the related issues are being worked on. But the community is involved in those discussions so I don't see any immediate threat to our self governance... for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm hoping our other great admins, such as BU Rob13, who's been a huge help with a sock we've been dealing with since late September 2016, return. Amaury • 18:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately this episode is likely to have done lasting damage. At least a few editors are probably gone for good. But I too hope that most will return in time. Everybody has to obey their own conscience and do what they think right. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Xiaoyun64 is suspected youtube friends/peer, only contributions are for Serpentza (please investigate accoun)

Serpentza does not live in China anymore

Please see this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYA2BDnnfGI at 1:22:45

Article at 11:30 he talks about moving https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J35AxY1pLE&t=690s

Wife talks about living in the USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2LfOV9nw_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZyKGCplB3Y&t=252s

Xiaoyun64 is suspected youtube friends/peer, only contributions are for Serpentza (please investigate accoun)

Serpentza does not live in China anymore

Please see this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYA2BDnnfGI at 1:22:45

Article at 11:30 he talks about moving https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J35AxY1pLE&t=690s

Wife talks about living in the USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2LfOV9nw_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZyKGCplB3Y&t=252s

You may open a discussion regarding your concerns on the article talk page. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Already using next sock user:Mookar721 to make the same SPI redirects Meters (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on the other page. The reason I asked for protection in advance is because an incredible amount of vandalism happens to the winner's page after that winner is declared. The purpose here is to avoid the interference as we try to enter info on the winner's page, to keep time consuming and frustrasting edit conflicts from happening. I speak from past experience on this. A perfectly undisturbed athlete's Wikipedia page becomes a spam paradise for IP users when that athlete wins a major tournament. We golf editors want to be able to edit the winner's page without that kind of interference happening again, and protecting that page in advance will enable us to do that. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johnsmith2116. I completely understand but our guidelines seriously discourage preemptive protection. It's also important to keep things in perspective. There is no damage that can be inflicted on any article that can't be reverted with a few clicks. If this gentleman should win and it looks like things are heating up, just resubmit your request. Alternatively you can always look for an admin currently online and drop them a note. Sometimes that is faster. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I've added the page to my watchlist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

An administrator has protected the page. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116 I saw that. It's only for 24 hrs. I may extend it tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. .. While I'm here, this coming week, golf will have the 2019 WGC-FedEx St. Jude Invitational which also is a high profile tournament. Next Sunday we could once again need protection for the winner of that also. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Earlier BLP violations may need to be clipped as well. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Terrific. Man, it doesn't take much to get the trolls typing. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Apparently not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

While reviewing your user page, I noticed that you are a fan of the Emperor. I do not usually recommend Facebook pages here on Wikipedia, but there is a great page called "Baghdad by the Bay" that often includes items about Emperor Norton. I sometimes post my San Francisco photography there. For what it's worth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328 I believe that I am the last living human being who is not on facebook. But if I can look w/o having to sign up I will check it out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My 21 month old granddaughter is not on Facebook and her parents radically minimize screentime in favor of human conversation and wooden toys and cats and books. It is almost like the 19th century around their house, except kinder. On the other hand, I post photos of her on Facebook sometimes because I love her so much and want family and friends worldwide to see her grow up. So, you are not the only one who is not on Facebook. You can probably look at the group without a Facebook account but it is highly active and you would be glimpsing at an ice cube chipped off a gigantic iceberg. Since I am not on Mark Zuckerberg's payroll (though I have worked on a construction site that he and his wife funded), I will move on and let you enjoy your Facebook-free life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

While there is much to recommend the 19th century, I confess to a fondness for antibiotics, modern dental care and a society that appreciates the virtues of regular bathing. I believe it was James I/VI who when explaining his views on health, boasted that he had gone for forty years w/o a bath. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is one of my favorite topics. Do you think this person Holy Child of La Guardia existed? I will have more questions about people whose existence is disputed coming soon. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In this case that seems doubtful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think that Gilgamesh's existence if for sure or disputed? If you tell me for sure I will remove him from the list of People whose existence is disputed as he is currently on that list. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davidgoodheart I am not a reliable source. However according to the article there seems to be a rough consensus among historians that he did in fact exist. If you are uncertain, the correct course is to open a discussion on the article talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, what about Utnapishtim did he most likely exist? He is from the same story of Gilgamesh. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have never heard of this person and am unqualified to express an informed opinion. I can only go by what our article says. Beyond which I would refer you to my previous reply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I will do what you suggest. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

ICHTHUS

July 2019

The Top 6 Articles

By

Stalinsunnykvj

A suicide attack on

WikiProject Christianity

were:

1. six marriages
   .
2. Carthusian monk Lanspergius
   from Spanish into Italian.
3. Elizabeth I of England
   in 1586, and was beheaded the following year.
4. Bob Dylan – American singer-songwriter, author, and visual artist.
   " Take care of all your memories. For you cannot relive them."
5. Elizabethan Era, reversed re-establishment of Roman Catholicism by her half-sister
   .
6. Billy Ray Cyrus – Having released 12 studio albums and 44 singles since 1992, he is best known for his number one single "Achy Breaky Heart", which became the first single ever to achieve triple Platinum status in Australia.

Did You Know?

Nominated by

Stalinsunnykvj

... that The

hexametric

poetry?

Featured article

Nominated by

Stalinsunnykvj

Eric and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story.

When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Approach to Guy/Girl Relationships is a 1999 book by Eric and Leslie Ludy, an American married couple. After becoming a bestseller on the Christian book market, the book was republished in 2004 and then revised and expanded in 2009. It tells the story of the authors' first meeting, courtship, and marriage. The authors advise single people not to be physically or emotionally intimate with others, but to wait for the spouse that God has planned for them.

The book is divided into five sections and sixteen chapters. Each chapter is written from the perspective of one of the two authors; nine are by Eric, while Leslie wrote seven, as well as the introduction. The Ludys argue that one's love life should be both guided by and subordinate to one's relationship with God. Leslie writes that God offers new beginnings to formerly unchaste or sexually abused individuals. (more...)

Help wanted

We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.

WikiProject Christianity

---

---

Ichthus is published by

here
Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom • Unsubscribe here

Delivered: 12:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi

encyclopedic notability of the subject. Lastly the tone of the article is unencyclopedic. It sounds like an advert for the subject and as such its neutrality could be called into question. I have placed tags on the article alerting editors to these issues. If you can fix some of these issues, please do so. While I have not nominated the article for deletion, it is possible that another editor may do so based on the subject's lack of notability. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk

) 19:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd consider applying semi-protection to this article that's much longer in duration than just one month. I just looked through the edit history of this article, and abuse from this LTA goes as far back as the end of 2018, and occurs with almost every edit to this article since then... I'd suggest extending it to at least one year to put a stop to the abuse there. Thoughts? Ping me in your response so that I'm notified; I have too many pages on my watchlist right now... lol :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. I see you have extended the protection. I'm fine with that. It clearly is long term abuse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, cool deal. Thanks for responding and for letting me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After looking into this matter further, I went ahead and extended the duration to one year. If you disagree or object to this change, please let me know. Given the abuse and history and how well I know you, I doubt that you'll care... I'm just letting you know about this just in case. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we please get protection here? Persistent BLPPRIVACY violations. Amaury • 00:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Page protected x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

	Nice to meet you ~
	~ You know I once saw a Parade ~ where this little Volkswagen beetle ~ came by and stopped right in front of me and ~ the doors flew open ~ and a bunch of Clowns came out ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Mitchellhobbs LOL. I expect something similar every time I see one of these. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem! I just wanted to leave you a message and wish you a great day! I figured I'd message you to know that I was thinking about you... I'm glad to see that you're still active here. Keep up the great work, and keep doing the great things you do! :-D Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

	The Padlock Barnstar
	Hello Ad Orientem, welcome back and thank you for protecting Wikipedia via talk ) 16:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Bradley026258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Looks like the previous block didn't deter this user. They're back at it again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@ GoneIn60 Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Already blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, about editors accusing me of stalking when I did no such thing and then throwing out threats of taking me to ANI. I see they love ANI, so it's fitting they'd threaten to report me there—however, nobody should wish that upon themselves unless it was a last resort and you'd think someone who's been there so often would know this. But maybe if they did, then they'd have to explain how I apparently stalked them. Maybe you can have a word to Erpert about being OTT and making false accusations. It'd be appreciated. Edit: I just realised I probably got accused of "stalking" because I pointed out they have been here for nine years and made 37,000 edits, when that's found in literally two clicks when one browses via mobile. Like I said, OTT. Ss112 22:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I have posted a reply on their talk page. This bickering stops now or I am going to start treating it as disruptive editing. As this is now a public quarrel any further communications on this matter, and it would be best if there were none, are to be posted in the open either there or on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112. They have asked you to stay off their talk page. Please respect that. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I said exactly the same thing I said to you via email here; there was nothing being hidden away from the open and you know this. I thought you get emails quicker, so I notified you in both locations. I have no interest in going back to an OTT editor's page; they only told me "not to bother them again" after I asked them below the closed thread in a new section how I had stalked them. Before that, I did not think closing a discussion meant not to post at their talk page. I wasn't attempting to bicker, but I don't like being accused of doing something I didn't do and I'm sure anybody would ask how the same as I did. But thank you for dropping a note to them. Ss112 23:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, when you block a user "indefinitely" how long does that often last for? I noticed that when you emailed the creator of the Pavlos Kouroupis to vote on AFD he had been blocked since 2013! What is the reason for blocking someone for so long? Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi

WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. And some people gravely abuse the community's trust through sockpuppetry & etc. or are just unable to abide by our policies and guidelines to the point where over time it becomes clear that have to be blocked to prevent incessant disruption. There are a variety of avenues for appealing blocks, but it generally depends on the offense, their track record as an editor and what they hope to do if unblocked. Some editors with very bad records are never unblocked. And many editors who are indeffed just walk away from the project. As for notification of AfDs, Twinkle does that automatically and it doesn't check to see if the user is currently blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 02:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S.

WP:AIV. The noticeboard updates frequently but if you see a report click on the contribs link for the editor or IP reported. You can then look at what they have been up to and get an idea of why they might, or might not, get blocked. One thing that is common is that if an actual account is reported for vandalism, and the vandalism is real, very often you will see that the account was only recently created and that all or most of their edits are clearly disruptive. In those situations an indefinite block is normative. IP's by contrast cannot be indefinitely blocked because it's always possible someone new may end up with the IP address. While I have seen a handful of exceptions, the maximum duration of an IP block is usually three years. I hope this helps answer your questions. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 03:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A
  administrator inactivity policy
  .

Arbitration

• Editors
  alert
  them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The
  removal for inactivity
  at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Would you mind rev deleting Special:Contributions/39.118.192.141? I pinged Sam on WP:Discord for a block, but he's on mobile and can't easily revdel everything. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It will be a few minutes. I'm clearing out RfPP right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL. Handled by Anarchyte (thanks!). -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the

WP:LTA/MRY to make sure it reflects that their also a nazi. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖

05:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Reporting 205.126.54.229

205.126.54.229 (talk · contribs) This editor keep adding unsourced content in articles by changing charts without explaining why. For example here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 24 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The editor is now using 63.248.206.190. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Now the editor is block evading [1]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz is again edit warring

Hi AO. I tagged you on the article, but

MOS:NUMERO, which actually says either can be used. Walter has said "No. 1 was used consistently here before YOU changed it", but the article actually used "number" consistently before Walter's change here yesterday, so I guess Walter is either lying or has quickly forgotten as well. I reverted that indirectly yesterday; Walter indirectly restored it today and has edit warred to retain it after I reverted him directly. He then used the excuse of "the artist's other articles use No. 1" when there is no such "collective rule" about one act's articles needing to be the same. I know you will say to use the article talk page, but Walter has disregarded BRD so I have nothing to discuss. He should, being the one seeking the change and edit warring to retain it. You know personally as I have told you about this editor before that this is far from the first instance where Walter has edit warred and he is again doing it. Ss112

22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112... page fully protected for six hours. Resolve this on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not having a pointless discussion with a nasty editor about a change he made and edit warred to maintain, but sure, thanks for protecting an article so Walter can be happy that his change stays there. Ss112 22:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not taking sides in a MOS content dispute. The article talk page is where this gets handled. If you are not interested in discussing it, then yes, the current version will stand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You know that's ridiculous: An editor can edit war to retain changes on an article and then their version stands? What about if another editor reverts Walter after the article is unprotected? Ss112 23:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to open a discussion on the article talk. I have already dropped a line on Walter's talk page. Be sure to ping any other involved editors to the discussion. As there is no specific MOS standard the issue will be resolved through talk page consensus. Once that consensus is established then that is what we will go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Sock of blocked user

Hi AO. I believe Connexeon is a sock of the EDM article vandal Phantasus Magician (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phantasus Magician/Archive). They have made much the same edits to the same topics; unexplained blanking and moving things around, including to Skrillex discography, which previous socks did as well. One of the sockmaster's typical things to do is give a misleading edit summary while removing a large amount of information, like here. Ss112 16:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed for WP:DE with the added note that they are likely a sock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello AO. Thanks for the block of 59.0.83.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). When you have a moment would you zap two of the edit summaries. Cheers and have a good weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 01:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Well as always my typing was too slow and they've been taken care of. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

NP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

MaranoFan

I really hate writing this, but this is a situation that needs to be sorted out at

WP:ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 15:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there Ad Orientem. I have never encountered this user before in all my years on here. The user is displaying

WP:OWN on Mad Love (Mabel song)

and has been harassing me ever since I started improving the article as it appears the user wants to do everything on his own in hope of nominating it to be a good article.

Here is a timeline of the behaviour:

• It starts with this petty and unnecessary edit with the following edit summary: "need for this, Coolmarc. People can just click the linked article if they want to know if it’s a magazine, website or newspaper. And since I’m sure you know DIY is a magazine, people can’t "say" things in it, they "write".
• The user used a PR description as a review. I removed it and the user reverts with this over the top edit summary "What is your basis for that assumption? Nowhere on the link does it state it’s a press release. Do not remove this again without discussing it on the talk page. WP:BRD"
• Then the user comes and attacks me on my talk page before I even get to give them the a link to the press release which they could have easily Googled before reverting. I found what they said to me on my talk page very telling "Stop removing content from the Reception section without any valid arguments. Nowhere does it say that the DIY review is a press release. Actually, the whole makeover you gave to the Reception section was completely unnecessary. You made it harder to read. Please calm down, thanks."
• After working on the article in my sandbox to avoid further conflict with the user, I expand the article and my expansion is almost entirely reverted through a series of edits by the user.
• Then the user harasses me on my talk page again with this meltdown "Just making it clear that if this article is GA nominated, I shall be added as a co-nominator. If you’re trying to WP:GAME the authorship system by rearranging content that I have originally written, just so you can nominate it alone, I’m gonna involve an admin. Regards..... Nevermind, just had a better read of the article and you did add some new content. But keep in mind about the GA co-nomination thing, I have the talk page watchlisted. Moving content, other people added to the Reception section, to Composition, does not mean you added it in the first place. It might game the algorithm but it won't fool people."

I have now reverted the user on the article as my expansion was definitely an improvement on what it was, but I'm sure they are going to revert it back to their version and look for something to cause more drama to chase me away from their article. I have had patience and been completely civil with this user up until this point but now I have had enough and they have gone too far. CoolMarc 06:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have started a talk page discussion on the talk page, which is what you should have done after being reverted. Stop drumming up drama, thanks. And please discuss the content additions one by one instead of forcing in hefty offtopic content without even using edit summaries to explain it. THAT is

WP:BRD and is blatantly edit warring with no edit summary now.—NØ

06:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh please quit the oblivious act. You know very well what you are doing. CoolMarc 06:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Nah ah, everyone actually knows what you are doing, since looking at your talk page history this is not the first time this has happened. And what you are doing, is creating a completely new version of the article every time someone else accumulates authorship of the current revision. That is textbook definition

WP:OWN behaviour.—NØ

06:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You have gone way too far this time for someone who has such an extensive block log. I'm sure this is the reaction you wanted and an admin will be able to look at the diffs and make an informed decision. CoolMarc 06:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a fine admin like AO will certainly make an informed decision. He'll see that you are forcing in your content through edit warring (Policy violation), your last two reverts violate the

WP:BRD cycle (another policy violation), and your refusal to discuss the content and resorting to attacking me as a person (Another policy violation). You've made more reverts than me, without leaving a content-related edit summary on any of them. Maybe it's time your block log begins getting some action too.--NØ

06:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could you please assist with an edit warring (possible) sockpuppet(eer)

Hi :) I recently reported a block dodging sockpuppeteer at SPI and it's sat there gathering dust since :( I recall you warning me about that. <-- aside

So, with the above in mind, I wonder if you might be able to help with what seems to be a set of IPs being used by the same person, making repeated reverts to multiple music subject pages, to get what they want. I first became aware that there might be a problem when I saw

Mos Def

.

I looked at 2601:8C:8200:8144:2195:7C79:D92C:ECE3's contribs and the histories of the edited pages, and found poor Binksternet apparently battling a set of IPs over all kinds of changes on various pages.

I got involved on a few of the affected pages; on Sheck Wes, Mos Def and André 3000, but there are so many IPs and pages involved – if this a case of sockpuppetry, I think it needs less foggy eyes (it's midnight here) than mine.

I left a warning for edit warring at User talk:2601:8C:8200:8144:2195:7C79:D92C:ECE3 for their 3RR violation on André 3000, but am very tired now. Sorry to dump all this on you like this, but the official channels require a little more wakefulness than I have right now. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Range blocked 2601:8C:8200:8144:0:0:0:0/64 x 1 week for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Binksternet -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow! You're efficient :) Thanks for taking this on in this manner. Have a good day/night Ad Orientem :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

NP. Good night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. Hope this finds you well. It appears that the same IP editor is back at it from at least this IP –

Mos Def again in a familiar pattern. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs

00:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again Ad Orientem. I noticed Binksternet had words with that IP in October 2018 about using multiple IPs. Apparently very persistent. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Opinion of editors blanking pages due to unsourced content?

Hey AO. I've recently come across Koavf blanking large parts of sections and even most of an article while citing

WP:V is our most basic policy, but I personally feel uneasy about decimating articles unless it's blatantly false information and formatting and I wanted to know if this is okay to do in your opinion. When it's just unsourced but obviously true I usually just tag it. The article was tagged for refimprove (since mid-2017), but Koavf has seen fit to turn it from 16 KB to basically little more than a stub. Koavf and I have had our differences and I think I know him well enough to know that if i had reverted his removals outright, he'd get quite defensive about removing all unsourced material so I wanted to seek another opinion. Ss112

04:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ss112. In general, unless we are talking about obviously controversial claims of fact or BLP type issues, my usual preference is to tag questionable material with CN tags and give editors a chance to fix it, before redacting large swaths of material. Tagged material can and should be removed after a reasonable period if it remains unsourced. Mass deletions of uncontroversial claims of fact, or claims that as a matter of common sense we know are likely true but simply lack a citation has sometimes been treated as disruptive. I am a big WP:V fan and have occasionally been accused of being hard nosed about it. And yes, I have stubbed some very poorly sourced articles. But only after tagging them and leaving a warning on the talk page that if sourcing didn't improve that I was going to take a meat cleaver to the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hope you both won't mind me joining in; I find "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" in the lead of

WP:BRD kicks in) or tagging, the statement then does require a reference. It's nice and simple :) Of course, it would be great if everything was added with a reference off-the-bat, but it would also be nice if it rained chocolate drops in my living room on command, and I'm not expecting either to happen – ever. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs

06:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A Rush of Blood to the Head (coldplay song)

Hi, there is persistent vandalism/disruptive editing on A Rush of Blood to the Head Arcadegirl (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arcadegirl I've range blocked 2601:484:C103:FFC0:0:0:0:0/64 x 3 months. They have a history of disruptive editing and have been repeatedly blocked before. Hopefully this will put an end to the problem for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of terrorist incidents

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of terrorist incidents. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Hi. I arrived here through

WP:F1 was seriously insulted on the talk page of 2019 Formula One World Championship. I thought that maybe it would be best that the revisions containing these insults were deleted altogether. They are the following: [4], [5], [6], [7].Tvx

1 12:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Tvx1  Already done by Diannaa. (Thanks!) -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony1's scripts are still causing signifcant issues

Not that I honestly expected him to fix the scripts he runs after you told him to be more careful, but Tony1's "script-assisted fixes" are still changing the date format of pages, for example here on an Italian DJ's article. Italy uses dmy date format on Wikipedia and not mdy, but Tony1's script sees fit to change the {{use dmy dates}} tag to whatever he has set it to, which is a mystery to everybody but him. This is a significant issue considering the amount of articles he edits regularly and runs the script on. God knows how many more thousands of articles he's run it on and changed the format of. Ss112 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I realize this is getting tiresome and I've dropped another message on their talk page. Hopefully they will take corrective measures. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Now User:Ss112, I've examined the versions of Prevale (DJ). It was mdy before I edited, which my edit preserved. What is the problem? And if there were anything for me to report to the script manager for fixing, you'd have a better chance of my doing so if your edit-summaries weren't so rude and your message here weren't sarcastic. Be nice.

And one more point: YOU are the editor who mushed up the year (20019), here; you then blame ME for doing that in a later edit summary. Get a grip. Tony (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: No, Prevale was tagged with use dmy dates. The editor who created the page, who does not appear very experienced, used mdy in prose, obviously mistakenly. Your script should not be changing a tag from dmy on an Italian subject's article to mdy. That also doesn't explain why on On My Way (Alan Walker song), about a Norwegian subject's song, that you inserted a date format when the article consistently used dmy, and of course you are ignoring the fact that your script obviously changes or inserts date formats to whatever you want it to be. It, or you, should not be doing that regardless. And don't be dense. I wasn't blaming you for me misspelling 2019 as "20019". I don't want to use scripts, so my point was that I wouldn't be needing to retype the date formats back to dmy in the first damn place if you didn't come onto articles and use scripts to change the date format against what it was previously or what it should be. Ss112 00:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh and I'm not going to fool myself into believing that you would report any issues others have to the "script manager", because as we've seen before from your responses, even before I tagged you in edit summaries, you don't see them as problems. Your response when I commented on a talk page raising the issue of your edits changing em dashes in wikitables to en dashes was basically "I don't see the issue". You obviously don't see the issue here either, but it is a big one because you run your scripts on a tonne of articles and you're changing date formats on them from what they should be. Ss112 00:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ok. I have no objection to having a discussion on my talk page. But you will both be civil. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't uncivil, last time I looked. But Ss112 is still being rude ("don't be dense"). I'd treat it more seriously if he were civil. I urge him to read the MOS on the guidelines for date formatting among the country-related articles. Neither Norway nor Italy has a mandatory date format on WP, so usually

WP:RETAIN applies. I did get that wrong originally on that article, yes; but this is a copy-book case of how to dissolve any semblance of cooperation. Tony (talk)

00:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: Here we go. You are again making excuses (my apparent "incivility" by telling you to not be dense) to continue ignoring this issue so you can continue on your way using scripts that change date formats on articles that already consistently use a different one, like On My Way (Alan Walker song) did. This is ridiculous. This is just an example and clearly not entirely about these two articles. I'm not going to go through every one of your edits and see how many articles you've changed the date format on, but I know there are plenty more from this example. Ss112 01:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, if you won't fix the issue when an admin confronts you about, what will get you to stop using a script to change date formats that others have to fix? ANI? Ss112 01:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't do this on purpose, and they're a tiny percentage of my total script output. You, too, make mistakes, such as the 20019 you blamed me for. BTW, it's not the script's fault: it's my fault for choosing the wrong button. Please tone down your language and be more collegial. I'm sure you do good work on WP. You could extend a little goodwill to others, rather than using the language of anger and confrontation. I'll try to be more careful. Tony (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: I don't appreciate you continually calling me out for my apparent incivility on the issue when I have seen your profanity-laden responses to others that have landed you in hot water (as recently as several months ago) that I assume, like mine on this issue, were borne out of frustration from someone else. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone—if you were a bastion of calm on WP, then I might think you have a point and not see hypocrisy instead. I hesitate to bring this up here, but your to tone others has gotten you blocked for personal attacks, yet you're telling me to "tone it down" and be more "collegial". And yet again, I wasn't blaming you for my misspelling; I just told you I was continuing/clarifying my previous edit summary by saying "fix your script so this doesn't happen again" when I was fixing the errors in my edit from having to revert your script edit manually. Ss112 01:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Good. So can we agree to work together productively? Tony (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Oooh a productive comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: Yes. I just hope you fix (or take steps to fix) the issues raised here and/or be more careful with your scripts, because I don't think you can blame someone for being frustrated if beyond here there are future instances of your edits wholesale changing a consistent date format. Ss112 01:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not pointing any fingers here, but we should all bear in mind that it's bad form to create unnecessary work for others. Or in other words, if you spill something, clean it up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Warning of Vandalism

	Warning of Vandalism
	I hope you don't make the redirected page or deletion of the page without my permission (as the author of the page) if you do so categorized as acts of Vandalism. Regards Thank You Roseirena (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page,

WP:DRV if you want to challenge it. Further, you don't own any article whether you created it, got it to GA status or otherwise. Also it is not vandalism. Praxidicae (talk

) 13:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

disruptive. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 16:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A reported sock puppet block evasion is apparently being ignored

Hi there. I previously mentioned in passing (up this page a bit), that I had reported a blocked user for continuing to edit with various IPs; The report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CodyFinke2019 has been sitting there doing nothing (other than being the target of some weird vandalism) since creation, and I've just added yet another IP to the growing list. Could you take a look and maybe poke a clerk or something? Thank you :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Hi. Since you blocked CodyFinke2019, I thought I should now also bring this to your attention. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fred Gandt. I have updated the SPI report. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Howdy (I've been awake too long again); thank you again (and again and again...) I see blockages; I'm sorry; I didn't know Drmies had blocked one already (Aug 8). Centralised discussion *grumble grumble*. I should go to bed. Have a great day/night Ad Orientem :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anitha Karthikeyan

Hi, just a note that the Mirchi Music Awards do seem to be a notable award going by their wikipedia page with reliable sources coverage and televised annually on national TV stations, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi

notable award is not necessarily a "major award" as understood in many of our notability related guidelines. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk

) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

About restoring the vandalism to that IP's talk page. I was trying to undo their edit. 2601:644:877F:F6D8:CC13:6BB7:E0D:52C3 (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by PeopleEater143

2601:48:8100:6d8a:cf8:858f:a95c:e356. Same topics (New music articles), same snarky edit summaries, IP geolocates to the same area of the US. Ss112 18:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112 Range blocked 2601:48:8100:6D8A:0:0:0:0/64 x 6 months. They have been operating all over this range for a long time despite repeated blocks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright deletion

Hi, this page here Maud Crawford was deleted due to something have to do with copyright. What exactly was the issue, can it be restored? Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. I took a look at the page and large parts of it appear to have been only slightly reworded text from other sources, notably this. That represents a very serious copyright issue. And unfortunately I would not be comfortable restoring the page. This will need to be rewritten from scratch with much closer attention to copyright. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism only..`

[[8]] Every edit, every single one is vandalism.

talk

) 00:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Stale report?

If you could, please clarify one of the IPs tagged as a stale report. (I reported 197.38.28.156 earlier for persistent vandalism, and he was tagged as a stale report for 24 hours...) James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I misread the date and just blocked them a minute ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking them. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

RevisionDelete request

Hello, looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.66.225.99 it appears his latest message is just blatant harassment of Adam9007. Hope to hear a reply from you. --SacredDragonX (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks TPA revoked and edits revdelled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please help me?

Resolved

-Ad Orientem (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an IP who (194.32.79.116) thinks that accused me of RainbowSilver (who is another user) just being I shared interests with anyone else. He or she thinks that I am being disruptive.

talk

) 03:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@ SpinnerLaserz I dropped a note on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I added sources to any articles (this is not considered disruptive) and I always follow the rules. If you had any question about me, let me know. I do brought this up at the

talk

) 03:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@

check user and request that they run a check on you. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 03:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If, however, I was the same person as RainbowSilver, then it is probably my former account but take a grain of salt. This leads me to a question, can a user abandoned their old account and create a new one (without being disruptive)?

talk

) 03:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here is a direct question. Are you RainbowSilver? Yes or no. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Before I answer yes or no. Am I in trouble for something? My edits are in good standing because I add sources. I've checked the RainbowSilver and RainbowSilver2ndBackup accounts, the edits made by the accounts seems to be in good standing other than solved disputes with other users (which ended pretty quite well and peacefully).

talk

) 03:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@ SpinnerLaserz As far as I can tell RainbowSilver's last edit was two years ago. There is no rule against adopting a new username as long as you are open about your previous identity. Generally editing from two accounts is strongly discouraged although there are rare cases where it may be allowed. As an example I have a back up account in case I can't access this one. I have never used it. It's fairly clear to me at this point that you are RainbowSilver. If you wish to use this account you should declare the old one on your user talk page and indicate that you have abandoned it. You should also make similar declaration on your previous account's user page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Can we close this ANI immediately? If your statement is true then I probably had to declare it that these accounts are abandoned because I may dislike the names and I wanted to start all over again.

talk

) 04:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@ SpinnerLaserz Ok. You need to post on your current account user page a list of any previous accounts and a statement that you have abandoned them. You should also post on the user pages of any previous accounts that they are abandoned and that this is your current account. It appears that you have noever been blocked so there should be no issue. I will close the ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I am in good standing, right? Is there is a template dedicated to former user accounts that they owned?

talk

) 04:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:MULTIPLE. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 04:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

194.32.79.116 removed discussions page and I told him or her that these are very important. Is this fine?

talk

) 05:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:REMOVE. Anyway, just drop it. 194.32.79.116 (talk

) 05:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm moving on right now. Good morning.

talk

) 05:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I am off to bed shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.