User talk:GeneralNotability/Archives/2021/August

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, GeneralNotability/Archives/2021. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

aeschylus (talk

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes BusterD Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes TheresNoTime Oversighter changes TheresNoTime ST47

Guideline and policy news

• An
  G13
  speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an
  requested move discussions
  .

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		1 July 2021 — 31 July 2021

Volume 1 — Issue 10
The Downlink
In the News! On 11th July Virgin Galactic had their first fully crewed mission to the edge of space with Richard Branson onboard in SpaceShipTwo VSS Unity. On 17th July NASA announced that scientific observations from the Hubble Space Telescope had resumed on a backup computer after being placed in a "safe mode" since June 13. On 20th July Blue Origin had their first fully crewed mission to the edge of space with Jeff Bezos onboard in a New Shepard capsule. On 26th July The Pirs module was the first permanent ISS module to be decommissioned. After docking to the ISS on 17th September 2001, just under 20 years ago. On 29th July The ISS was moved out of its normal orientation after the Nauka module (a new Russian module) was docked and started firing its thrusters.
Article of the month. Shuttle-Centaur Shuttle-Centaur was a version of the upper stage rocket designed to be carried aloft inside the Space Shuttle . Two variants were developed: Centaur G-Prime and Centaur G. The powerful Centaur upper stage allowed for heavier deep space probes, and for them to reach Jupiter sooner. However, neither variant ever flew on a Shuttle.	Image of the month. This is an Extreme Deep Field image taken from the Hubble Space Telescope, released by NASA on September 25th, 2012. With exposure dates from July 2002 to March 2012.
Members New Members: Itsfullofstars (Joined on the 10th July) James Denesuk (Joined on the 31st July) Number of active members: 120. Total number of members: 333. July Launches All times stated here are in UTC. Soyuz-2.1b – OneWeb 8 (1st at 12:48:33) Success Long March 2D – Jilin-1 (3rd at 02:51) Success Long March 4C – Fengyun 3E (4th at 23:28) Success Tianlian I-05 (6th at 15:53) Success Long March 6 – Ningxia 1 (9th at 11:59) Success Long March 2C – Yaogan 30-10 (19th at 00:19) Success Proton-M – Nauka (21st at 14:58:25) Success Long March 2D – Tianhui-1D (29th at 04:01) Success Electron – Monolith (29th at 06:00) Success Ariane 5 ECA – SO-D2 & Eutelsat (30th at 21:00) Success August Launches Launch dates can change. See a current list: here. Atlas V N22 – Boeing Orbital Flight Test 2 Long March 3B/E – ChinaSat 2E Antares 230+ – Cygnus NG-16 Falcon 9 Block 5 – Starlink 2-1 GISAT 1 Vega – Pléiades Neo 4 Gaofen-3 02 EcoRocket – TBA Soyuz-2.1b – OneWeb 9 Falcon 9 Block 5 – CRS-23	Article Statistics This data reflects values from the 31 July 2021. Spaceflight articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 19 5 7 38 FL 1 4 4 9 FM 102 102 GA 11 24 34 54 123 B 2 48 40 52 142 C 56 160 545 510 12 1,283 Start 36 157 1,106 2,244 374 3,917 Stub 9 244 2,188 233 2,674 List 14 126 79 218 1 438 Category 1,032 1,032 Disambig 49 49 File 207 207 Portal 55 55 Project 68 68 Redirect 2 1 1 1,134 1 1,139 Template 501 501 Other 31 31 Assessed 126 546 2,058 5,278 3,179 621 11,808 Unassessed 3 1 74 78 Total 126 546 2,058 5,281 3,180 695 11,886 Monthly Changes Since June: 24 pages have been added to spaceflight. There are 4 more files. There is 1 more B class article, 5 more C class articles, 10 more start class articles & 2 more stub class articles. The 2 additional FM class have been FM for a few years, they just registered this month.
Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list . Newsletter contributor: Terasail

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

If clearer evidence emerges later, can a second SPI be open? I feel sure the new editor is TDM.

Ktrimi991, yes indeed, if you find stronger evidence in the future you may re-file. I recommend Blablubbs's User:Blablubbs/How_to_file_a_good_SPI for tips on how to file a concise SPI with strong evidence. GeneralNotability (talk

) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and the link with tips. I was aware before filing the SPI [1] that it is hard to prove the connection as long as two accounts have never edited the same article. Idk, maybe only someone with experience in Balkan stuff would see the point I tried make: a Balkan editor with years of experience knows that in practice it is extremely unlikely that two different Australians would edit at the same time Serb nationalist stuff, Middle East wars and air travel-related articles. Anyways, I think that for now the best thing for me is to move on and focus on other things. Thanks again. Cheers,

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 10:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please also block this blatant sock that restored the edits of a sock you just blocked? [5][6]. Thanks in advance. 86.120.251.61 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like ST47 got them. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately he creates one sock after another. A new illegal account is active and I reported it too at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99 ... 82.78.61.100 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi GN,

Could you take a look at this [7] account? Looking at its edit history [8], it's an obvious sock and I'm pretty certain that it is the same person as in this SPI case which you dealt with a while ago. The account was created on the same day as that report (also the same day the article Hanbok was protected), and the edit patterns are exactly the same.

Thanks in advance! Esiymbro (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Esiymbro, I think you're right. Blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a violation of it as well to my eyes. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I just added a followup comment linking a bunch of edits in the past hour that have violated it, but thanks - I'll hang onto that link in case anyone says this was a one-off. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't face pulling up any more but it wouldn't surprise me if there were. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I know I confused the two -- an indef block & a ban -- but that was because I feel the only solution in this case is a ban. As I said in this thread, for at least 15 years he's been going thru this cycle of being a valuable editor, encountering some incident that upsets him, getting himself banned, then creating another account & coming back to do it all again. (I suspect he's already created another account by now.) That's simply not healthy. Banning him might be the best thing to do for him -- as well for the encyclopedia. I hope, if he returns, people look at this longer history of behavior before acting. That's all I have to say about the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

llywrch, understood, I mostly wanted it clear that I had not tried to impose a ban (since there are very few situations where an administrator can unilaterally ban someone - almost all bans are based on community consensus). GeneralNotability (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that there's a bigger story here which many are not aware of--& this lack of knowledge has been repeatedly exploited. -- llywrch (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure that if GeneralNotability were aware of the backstory they would not have threatened to block BHG for what she said about AAW. DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That was a stupid and cruel block. I can only assume you were motivated by profound ignorance. DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: No, that was a justified block in my opinion. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability is aware of at least some of the backstory, but AAW/Chris.sherlock/etc. is not the only target of BHG's personal attacks, and even if they were, the correct way to deal with someone harassing you is not to sink to their level, and being uncivil to someone being uncivil to you is still uncivil. Two wrongs do not make a right.. Regardless, GeneralNotability is sick and tired of people who think it's okay to belittle and insult other editors in any situation, and GeneralNotability has acted in accordance with his understanding of

WP:CIV. GeneralNotability (talk

) 22:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Do you, General Notability, and you, TheresNoTime, REALLY want AAW's history brought up at length and in detail on wiki? Because that is what it will come to. I don't want to do it, but by gum I bloody well will if this harassment of one of the few editors with the decency to stand up to him continues. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You'll notice that AAW is currently under an indefinite block for their own behavior. And again: AAW is not the only editor whom BHG has engaged in PAs against. This is not an "AAW vs BHG" issue (and if anyone thinks that I'm defending AAW, do take a moment and check who blocked them last night), this is a general "BHG's behavior towards other editors" issue. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I noted your threat to block BHG for her accurate descriptions of AAW's behaviour, under his numerous accounts. DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

And so, if that formed any part of your decision to block her, which the block log implies, then his behaviour is up for examination in the review of your actions. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I also note that despite being informed of it, you did not remove his personal attack on her from his userpage. DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Incivility has no place on the project, period, and more admins need to apply that. Roll on the

If civility were really a thing AAW would have been banned ten years or more ago. He accused me, via Wikipedia email, of (Redacted). Arbcom knew. And still he got every get out of jail free card going, and still people bear grudges against those who stand up to him. You'll forgive me if I think there's a shed-load of hypocrisy here. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: And that's truly awful to hear, honestly. Why wasn't that dealt with? We should ask those questions and demand answers. All incivility should be dealt with - that, this and all the rest of the crap people get away with ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: It was "dealt with" by revoking email access (never applied to his later accounts) and him agreeing never to return. Which he did. Everyone goes on about his mental health problems, and it gets his some of his attacks on me suppressed from his talk page, nobody (save BHG and Geoff) ever gives a damn about the mental health problems he quite deliberately inflicted on others. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm mindful not to derail this conversation on GeneralNotability's talk page, but I respect your statement nobody [...] ever gives a damn about the mental health problems he quite deliberately inflicted on others. This is a good point, and something my own 'real life' experiences can attest to; you are always accountable to your actions regardless of your mental state. The editor should be held accountable for the disruption they have caused (and I believe it looks like they have?) ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

NB. I'm getting a smidge irritated at the application of suppression in regards to all of this. Very fine line between useful oversight and that uneasy feeling. I urge my esteemed colleagues to consider the optics. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I will be bringing up this thread with the other Arbs, as I do believe it will be useful going forward in deciding how we handle these situations in the future. There are previous discussions and internal consensus regarding a few issues which are driving the current round of suppressions, and we are also discussing those matters and how they can potentially be codified and/or clarified, without bringing too much attention to any specific instance. I'm happy to discuss this further elsewhere (to not clog up GN's talk page as mentioned). Primefac (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Who redacted my truthful comment? Why? Who hasn't had the decency even to tell me they did it? DuncanHill (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I'm not sure I can tell you who, but I do disagree with it as stated. I do however respect and welcome the message by Primefac above - these things are not very well defined and I do know we tend to err on the side of caution ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: @Primefac: There's nothing "civil" about redacting someone's truthful comment and not even telling them who did it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I do apologise, DuncanHill, that was me redacting the content; I had written a few different replies before settling on the one that got posted here, and in one of them I did mention I had removed the text on the basis that it was private information from an email between the two of you. Somehow that sentence managed to get dropped. Being true does not mean something must be said, or kept, though. As I said above and will restate for the record, I will be bringing your thoughts and comments here to ArbCom for further discussion and reflection; in my opinion things got very out of hand very quickly and we need to be better about how we deal with such things in the future. Primefac (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: It was raised with Arbcom at the time, and I recall raising it again later. It was not an email "between the two of [us]" it was an unsolicited email from the then account of AAW - I think I'm right in saying he was blocked at the time (he's had so many accounts I hope you'll forgive me for not recalling the username off the top of my head)). After all this time, biting my lip for years, and going out of my way to avoid embarrassing AAW I really cannot let it stand any longer. Arbcom, or at least the Arbcom of the time, are complicit in his attacks -as are all the admins who threatened or blocked those who stood up to him. There are also suppressed attacks on me and an admin on his talk page now, I will require access to them if any case is bought involving him and me. I'm not angry with you Primefac personally, (I do understand the difficulty of re-drafting to suit everybody) just with a fucking useless system that protects abusers and victimises their targets. Feed that back to Arbcom too. DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Lot going on here, brief responses:

• DuncanHill, you are correct that I left a PA in place; I saw the diff adding it and acknowledged, but I did not remove it. I have generally held back from redacting all but the most over-the-top offensive attack statements (I didn't even ask that of BHG, only that she strike her comments). And I have no problem with AAW's behavior being reviewed (though, obviously, I'm not going to bring up the suppressed bits myself). I don't exactly care for them either.
• Primefac, you're welcome to have that conversation here, and I'll note for my TPWs that I actually sent ArbCom an unhappy email last night about that suppression (mostly on the grounds of the suppressed content not being covered by OSPOL - I have no problem with its removal, I just want the written rules to agree with how things work in practice).
• Everyone: yes, I originally said I would block if BHG did not strike her comments about AAW. I stand by saying that. In my eyes, her comments went beyond "description of behavior" and into "attacks". Then I read even more of the ANI thread and, feeling that this is a major and currently ongoing problem chose to expand my block rationale from "civility violations against AAW" to "civility violations against several people." Had she struck those comments, I would not have blocked her (since that would be moving the goalposts) but would instead have commented in the thread. The fact that she has been harassed by AAW is deplorable and inexcusable, but we cannot meet incivility (or perceived incivility) with incivility of our own. I am starting to get quite tired of us as a community allowing editors to be assholes to each other simply because they are "productive". GeneralNotability (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

How many years did you wait before taking action against AAW? How many minutes for BHG? DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I'm sorry, but I'm dumbfounded by that statement. Years? I've had the sysop bit for something like a year and a half now and wasn't around for most of Chris.sherlock's drama. I !opposed their unblock at AN...what, two years ago now? (in case you go looking, it's under my account's old name). After I was privately informed of the IBAN violation, I spent about fifteen minutes checking their recent contribs, deciding that yes this was absolutely an IBAN violation, talking to a couple fellow admins to make sure I wasn't completely out of line, and then blocking. In contrast, I spent most of this afternoon staring at ANI and going back and forth on how to deal with this, even before I posted to ANI. This was not a spur-of-the-moment decision by any means. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec)So what's your old name? I really don't have the time to keep track of people who keep deciding to be someone else. I've never been anyone else. DuncanHill (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

My old username was creffett, and to save you the further time required to look it up, my !vote was as follows: Oppose for now: The unblock request is still missing the essential parts: understanding what they did wrong and convincing us (well, the reviewing admin) that they'll do better. I see a history of their contributions followed by some combative behavior. I respect their significant past contributions to the project, but I'm definitely a "nobody is above the law" type. Oppose, potentially revisited if they at least meet the minimum requirements for an unblock request. Probably not the response you're looking for, since I was not familiar at the time with all of the drama surrounding Chris.sherlock, but my point is that I didn't exactly invite them back. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

If you knew the history you would hate yourself. You were warned, and you did not attempt to find out why. DuncanHill (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

16:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledged. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Interested in your comments at User talk:Zhimon. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's worth a shot, at least. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you, and Oreo the doggo are doing well.
I didnt understand your comment regarding y. I asked you about it right there in the ANI, but surprisingly, I forgot to sign the comment; thus failing the ping. Would you please explain it? Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran, all days end in y, so the comment was that editors pushing caste issues is nothing unusual. —valereee (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@valereee oh! A day ending in y. lol silly me. Thanks for the explanation
PS: my signature is way cooler than yours. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) And it's much easier to say and remember than "all months ending in y, h, l, e, t, and r"! BilCat (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, a sock you blocked seems to have returned [12], making the same edits on this article [13]. They've also requested discussion be made on the talk page similarly [14] [15] Magherbin (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Magherbin, yup, that looks like them, thanks for letting me know. Blocked them, semi-protected the page for a few months. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:GeneralNotability, it looks like them again editing the same articles [16] Magherbin (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Magherbin, think that's a different sockpuppeteer active in the topic area, but still a sock. Blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

]

Hi, I am here to report an NPA violation, a user posting "Get AIDS and die" in Chinese, here. I would hope it warrants a block. Have a great day.--NØ 13:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

MaranoFan, yeah, that's not okay. Issued a temporary block. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record I think it was perfectly reasonable to block a user who has a history of incivility that no one has been willing to address because they're so important to the project. JMO, but if it had been someone unimportant with otherwise the exact same history of incivility, no one would have complained about the block and no one would have unblocked. That's pretty much the issue right there. —valereee (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee, I appreciate it. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

19:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, GeneralNotability. I'm running an SPI investigation here: [23]. If you please, you may review it (I have evidence). Israell (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Israell, handled - sorry, not the result you're probably hoping for, but the article in question has been protected for a few days at least. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I was going through 223.178.74.91's contributions from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satish Raman Nair you just closed.. I think 122.173.233.203 is an obvious continuation of the the evasion. It is on the same ISP in India, though different geolocation in India, but geo isn't always reliable inside countries. 122.173.233.203 is picking up on 13 August where 223.178.74.91 left off on 11 August, and is editing the same articles and expanding them (interaction tool).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Eostrix, I concur. Blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99, a blatant sock-puppetry case that is open for 10 days. You blocked a previous illegal account and I think you are familiar with this editor now. 86.120.179.32 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Handled. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your action, I appreciate it. I reverted all of his / her edits to discourage ban evasion. However I was not able to undo the edits from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi&action=history because of automatic protection. 86.120.179.182 (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

HI , I have some questions and I hope if you can help me , thank you , Hamaredha (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hamaredha, don't ask to ask, just go ahead and ask your questions. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear GeneralNotability: The

Hi, thanks for dealing with the Putra Yudha Pradana SPI. I noticed that you added a comment possibly linking that to an earlier investigation, and when I went to see that, I noticed there an account which I also nearly included in my Putra Yudha Pradana filing, namely Lukewon. They seem to loiter around the same topic areas as the reported account and their behaviour seems duckish and odd in many ways, but in the end I left them out because I couldn't really find evidence to justify including them. I thought I'd just mention this, in case you feel there's something worth investigating further. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

When you reverted Frost & Sullivan you reverted back to the promotional version of the article. The COI section is well-referenced and has been removed several times by single-purpose accounts. You should reinstate the COI section. FrostSullivanCOI (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:SYNTH to me. The first reference is simply the pdf of the plan. The second, which I can't seem to get to, is the publication of the report, and the third is the fact the journal is predatory. The fourth doesn't seem to mention F&S? I'm not saying that it's not all true that they have a conflict of interest, it totally looks sketchy, but in order to publish something that negative, we need someone saying, in a reliable source, "F&S has engaged in a practice which researchers have said represents an inherent conflict of interest" or something. We don't connect the dots. Someone else has to do that. —valereee (talk

) 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: fair. Here's such an assessment in Hebrew (and a Google Translate machine translation). Some choice quotes, loosely translated by me:

בחברת אלקטריאון למשל: נתנו אנליזה ל-25 שקל למניה, המניה עלתה, העלו תוך פחות מרבעון פי ארבע למחיר יעד של 101 שקל למניה, המניה עלתה שו והמחיר יעד קפץ ל-153 שקל למניה, המניה עלתה עוד והמחיר יעד קפץ ל-181 שקל למניה. וכן הלאה.

"For Electreon [Frost & Sullivan] set a price target of 25 NIS, the stock went up, [F&S] raised the price target in less than a fiscal quarter four-fold to 101 NIS, the stock went up again and the price jumped to 153 NIS, the stock went up more and the target price jumped to 181 NIS and so on."

אם זה באמת נכון, גוף כמו פרוסט וסאליבן לא חושש למוניטין שלו? התשובה היא, שכל כך ברור "שהאנליזות" האלו קנויות, כלומר משולמות על ידי החברה שאף אחד לא חושב להסתכל עליהם בשביל לבדוק את הרמה המקצועית.

"If all of this is true, wouldn't a corporation like Frost & Sullivan fear for its reputation? The answer is that it's so clear these "analyses" are bought, meaning funded by the [analyzed] company, that nobody even thinks about looking at their standards of professionalism."

בלי התערבות של הרשות זה לא יפסק. להנהלות החברות יש אינטרס להמשיך בזה שכן זה "לוכד ברשת" משקיעים שלא מודעים לנושא התשלום, הבורסה בטח שלא תתערב ופרוסט וסאליבן ימשיכו לתת הערכות שווי המנותקות מהמציאות. הפתרון היחיד יכול להגיע מהרשות - הרשות צריכה להפסיק את הפרויקט הזה ולהגן אחת ולתמיד על המשקיעים מפני הסכנות למשקיעים שהוא טומן בחובו.

"Without intervention from the [securities] authority this will not stop. The management of these companies have an interests to keep this up because it "snares" investors that are unaware of the funding issue. The stock exchange surely will not intervene [because they facilitate the scheme and profit from it - FrostSullivanCOI (talk)] and Frost & Sullivan will keep giving unfounded price targets. The only solution can come from the [securities] authority - the [securities] authority needs to halt this scheme and protect investors once and for all from the dangers it holds."

FrostSullivanCOI (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@FrostSullivanCOI, this would be better at the article talk, where people familiar with that article can discuss. Why don't you copy it there? You'll also want to explain what bizportal is, as I'm not seeing any indication of editorial oversight and we don't have an article on them. —valereee (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

whoops —valereee (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That section has also been added several times by single-purpose accounts...BrightR. Neither side has clean hands here. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Did you get that document over at the Mario Kleff Afd. The comment was dated on 10:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC) and updated by Meow2021 scope_creep^Talk 12:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Scope creep, the one you said proved Meow2021's identity? Yes, I saw it. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought you would have redacted it from the Afd? scope_creep^Talk 13:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to. All they did was post a source. Drawing conclusions about someone's identity based on it is what's problematic. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the rather odd Mamounism SPI case. There's another that's been outstanding for a couple of days - a couple of new accounts for long term sockpuppet politicalguru. One of the socks has just popped up again this evening and started his/her pattern of disruptive edits again. Any chance you could take a look? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

10mmsocket, sure, I'll try to look tonight. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

21:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi GeneralNotability, a few weeks ago you protected the page

Stefka Bulgaria, I've semi'd for a month. I do not currently see a need for ECP. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A maintenance operation will be performed on Wednesday August 25 06:00 UTC. It should only last for a few minutes.

Also during this time, operations on the CentralAuth will not be possible (GlobalRenames, changing/confirming e-mail addresses, logging into new wikis, password changes).

For more details about the operation and on all impacted services, please check on Phabricator.

A banner will be displayed 30 minutes before the operation.

Please help your community to be aware of this maintenance operation. Thank you!

20:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, GN. I've opened a new SPI case on Nia503, this time as IP 208.83.82.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Should it be blocked now or should we wait until further disruption? —El Millo (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:AIV (mentioning the SPI so that people don't tell you to go through the escalating warnings routine). GeneralNotability (talk

) 02:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post it at AIV next time. —El Millo (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion. 2600:387:F:4419:0:0:0:7 (talk · contribs) restored the same edit BillBoyd2017 was edit warring into Jeff Spangenberg, with the same edit summary, less than 20 minutes after you blocked BillBoyd2017. Meters (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Meters. Handled. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That was quick. I edit conflicted with you trying to change "same" to "nearly identical". Meters (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Fast work, service is resumed! Girth Summit (blether) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :) GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)