User talk:NinjaRobotPirate: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:17, 16 March 2023

Did you know that F5 is the "generate drama" key? Try it! Every time you press it, more drama is auto-generated on Wikipedia.

Note: I rarely check my email, so if you send me something important, you should probably let me know.

Bored? Try editing the following articles about heavy metal and industrial albums:

Bricks Are Heavy – like most L7 articles, this is just a tracklist and a few reviews, but there's probably mountains of coverage.
The Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Taste – I've been working on fleshing this out for a while now, but it still needs work.
The Land of Rape and Honey – Same deal. This was a big deal in the 1980s industrial scene, which means lots of coverage.
Big Sexy Land – The Revolting Cocks' debut album. There's probably retrospective coverage and interviews.
Agogo (album) – Nothing but a tracklist and citation to Allmusic.
A Drug Against War – This is fairly fleshed-out for a single, but that's partly because I added some sources.
Beg to Differ – Like most Prong albums, this is mostly just a tracklist. Tommy Victor is not shy in interviews.
War of Words (Fight album) – From Rob Halford's other band. Nothing but a tracklist.
I Luciferi – Like many mid-era Danzig albums, this need some work, such as reorganization and copy editing.
Implode (album) – Many FLA albums are a list of samples and singles, then a tracklist, especially if they're missing Rhys Fulber.

Serial sourcing policy violator needs a block

Hello, and Happy New Year. You may remember from that big discussion on WP:V and sourcing that we participated in regarding radio and related articles back in August/September 2022. Since you obviously understood the importance of WP:V/WP:CS/WP:NOR, et al, I decided to contact you regarding the problem with User:CRussG. This editor has warnings on his talk page going back at least as far as April 2017 from numerous other editors for adding unsourced material to various articles. He does not appear to engage them in discussion as a consistent habit, as at least one editor implores them to respond after an initial messages go unanswered (though he did respond to a more recent message). If you search for the word "source" on his talk page, you'll see all these messages. I first contacted him in August 2018 regarding his adding uncited content to Carolyn Beug, but he continued to attract warnings for the same behavior subsequent to this, right up to December 2022. I think this editor needs a considerable block, since he doens't seem to be getting the message, and doesn't seem to care. Please help. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message. Maybe a non-templated message from an admin will have better results. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, NinjaRobotPirate!

Happy New Year!

NinjaRobotPirate,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding an aggressive user

I've noticed that you have addressed the user Peter Teflon Christ recently, who responded to you in a manner consistent with their character in general on Wikipedia. While they are not necessarily a vandal, they have a history of problematic behavior, and as you are a more experienced/administrative user than myself, I wanted to ask if behavior like the examples of below, such as:

Unbalanced diatribes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Woovee&diff=prev&oldid=1112787102

Insults: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spirituals_(Santigold_album)&diff=prev&oldid=1112777546 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spirituals_(Santigold_album)&diff=prev&oldid=1112786189

Changing an editor's post title: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teflon_Peter_Christ&diff=next&oldid=1087061487

Whatever this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spirituals_(Santigold_album)&diff=prev&oldid=1112787859

... is this worth pursuing with the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page? Or does this rudeness fall short of what's considered abusive by Wikipedia's standards? It's not a big deal for me to get insulted, but when I see it as a pattern, I hope it can be dealt with. Thanks. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, best bet would probably be to post to WP:ANI and get an uninvolved admin to block him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, here's the link to the discussion, in case you're interested: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Teflon Christ YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Sixth Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing NinjaRobotPirate a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

Stephen

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

CheckUser changes

Moneytrees

Oversighter changes

Guideline and policy news

Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Tulfo birthday

There is like a post in birthday of Tulfo. It was posted on August 12 in facebook and also, I saw his bio in KAMI that his birthday is August 10, 1964. Can I include that as a reference? WikiCentral24 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I haven't seen it. If Erwin Tulfo posted from a verified account that his birthday was August 12, 1964, that would be OK, though. If he didn't say that exact statement, then it wouldn't be OK. For example, if it was someone just saying "happy birthday", that doesn't count because people say that on the wrong day sometimes, and it doesn't include the year. I have no idea who or what KAMI is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Website in my area uhm i dont know WikiCentral24 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phone IP blocked despite having never used it for wikipedia

Hi, it says you blocked my phone's IP range almost 2 years ago, back in 2021. The reason was "Ip range belongs to common sockpuppet". I've never used Wikipedia on my phone before (i only just started editing recently) so i'm assuming it was a mistake. AGoodSongNeverDies 21:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Roger Murtaugh in Lethal Weapon: "I'm too old for this shit." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm BilCat (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most odd

As you can see, the article interaction is enormous given that Santosh Aggarwal has made only 380 edits (although at a rapid clip) compared to China's 18K+. However, the tag platforms are different, and I can't see a rational reason for the discussion at Commons if they are the same person or even meat puppets, but, nonetheless, I thought I'd at least show it to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty weird. Turns out they're confirmed. Reminds me of someone who'd have long, deep conversations with his socks. Sometimes he and his socks debated themes in his favorite anime. The debate got so heated once that he requested intervention by functionaries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen weird behavior by socks many a time, but I really don't see why it was even necessary to have that conversation at Commons, although I suppose if I hadn't seen it, I might have blocked on my own. Indeed, I almost decided to let it go and not even report it. Good thing I didn't. Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Unchained" 1955 Movie

Please add Todd Duncan as Bill Howard

He was one of the main protagonists as well as a star in his own right; he should be in credits after main star. 98.186.195.124 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Unchained (film)? I don't know anything about that. The article doesn't seem to be protected, so you can add it yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

explain

can you explain which article are talk? FPP (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh... what? If you mean what article you're not allowed to add unsourced biographical details to, that would be all of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reliable source

You left me a message about IMDB not being a reliable source. That's ok. But now I have a question: The best source for the content of the trivia section I added in Serendipity (film) is the film itself. I have the film on DVD. So I checked the scenes, took screenshots and proofed that the made statement is correct. Now: How do I "translate" that into Wikipedia? Yqzuvwj (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't. You can only summarize what a reliable source has already said. If The New York Times doesn't care, neither does Wikipedia. Doing it yourself is original research and is forbidden by policy. If you want to tell the world about interesting trivia that's not found in reliable sources, there are plenty of other websites where you can use for that, such as TV Tropes, the IMDb, and various blogs. You can't do that on Wikipedia, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. But that raises another question. When someone writes a plot summary in Wikipedia he or she usually has no sources other than the film itself. Why is that ok then? Yqzuvwj (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion of this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Analysis and interpretation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yqzuvwj (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at this - another sock?

[1] - since you have CU details you're the best one to check - or not. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the IP editor on Philomathes2357's talk page? I haven't really followed this drama. I'm pretty sure that's not Raxy, if that's what people are intimating. Probably not anyone else who's popped up so far, either. If random people are popping up out of nowhere to be disruptive, you could always semi-protect the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-one suspected sock

Hello again, after long time. Article Military, talk page of that article,

1. Requested move 21 January 2023- srapa (talk · contribs)
2. Merge Armed forces to Military-

DickyP (talk · contribs)

Both users the same content, the same objections on that page, so I suspect that is the same person with a sock account. Nubia86 (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does look a bit suspicious, but the older account hasn't been used in months. It's possible it's someone who forgot their password. The accounts also don't have any overlapping edits except for that one talk page. If both accounts vote in the current discussion, that'd definitely be something we could investigate. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on the accounts, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nubia86 I just copied his or her arguments, are the comments on the discussion page copyrighted? Srapa (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So in that case, you don't have that 1926 edition of Webster. And you don't have naval friends who are bothered about. That is DickyP's Webster and DickyP's navy dudes! You see, if that is your case, you can totally relax. Nubia86 (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little help at AIV

And perhaps block the disruptive little IP? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

TY for blocking that IP at long last! Cheers! — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Unfortunately, AIV can get a little backlogged around 05:00 UTC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Why am i being blocked? Brock2118 (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll have to follow the instructions you see on your screen. If you don't do that, you'll just end up confused and dissatisfied, like fans of 1899. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Odd, since the user hasn't been blocked. However, I did have some trouble making edits and logging in today, so perhaps the user also experienced some similar issues. BilCat (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could be an autoblock. They should probably be made easier to appeal. The whole unblock process is stuck in the early 2000s. Wikipedia is like the land that time forgot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion

MickyJFan6790 (talk · contribs)

I believe this account is related to RedactedUser300 who been blocked in November of last year [2] [3] [4] [5]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YeetaSkeeta is stale, but MickyJFan6790 is

Confirmed to RedactedUser300. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Administrator changes

Gimmetrow

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news

The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the edit on Mahua Moitra page reverted despite having

I have provided the references for the same. Can you please explain why you are unnecessarily moderating valid edits? 122.172.241.221 (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Banned editors are not allowed to edit English Wikipedia. Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion by Talonjay

Jefente (talk · contribs)

I believe this editor is related to Talonjay who blocked for genre warring [6] [7]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's him. Same IP address. Reminds me of the lockdowns in the US. Everyone stayed on their own IP address for months at a time. It was very nice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Das Kittles

Das Kittles (talk · contribs)

I think this editor is not being here to build an encyclopedia by making unconstructive edits in articles [8] [9] [10] and admits it at their user page [11]. This editor also made a comment on my talk page [12], I don't think this editor is here to be serious. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's nice when they label themselves as vandals so we don't have to do any guesswork. At least with the young ones, there's hope that they'll eventually mature. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question for this person

You blocked this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.223.53.0/24 and I have a question for them about the Danny Coulson page. CarverSindile (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.CarverSindile (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

Hi, Ninja. I've just sent you an email. JBW (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC) ... and another one. JBW (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Phuc180802

Phuc180802 (talk · contribs)

This editor keep removing content in the article Channel Orange without explaining why [13] [14] [15]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked two weeks this time. He's already blocked indefinitely on Vietnamese Wikipedia, which doesn't make me feel confident this behavior is going to change. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring problems with WP:V/WP:NOR violators on two-way radio

Hi. Two editors who were among those in that drawn-out conflict last year who argued against including citation or excluding info based on editors' personal knowledge, Chetvorno and Fountains of Bryn Mawr, having been making edits that violate WP:V, WP:NOR, and that in general, I believe are disruptive. The relevant edits and edit summaries can be seen in the article history, and the conflict is further illustrated on Chetvorno's talk page and my own, in which Fountains of Bryn attempted to argue that calling disruptive edits disruptive edits is in itself disruptive, (No, I'm not joking), falsely citing WP:DAPE in support of this canard. Chetvorno has subseqently continued to disrupt the lede section of the article, employing a rationale that I believe is not logically sound. I have issued a final warning to Chetvorno for his continued edits, but I thought I'd let you know to keep a heads-up. Nightscream (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC

I'm not really sure I understand what the dispute is even about, and there's nothing on Talk:Two-way radio. Is this about whether two-way radios "usually" or "always" use half duplex communications? In case anyone tries to argue the facts of the matter, I'll say up front that telecommunications technology tends to bore me. If you've got a source, why not post what the source says on the talk page and explain your position? That would at least clear up what the dispute is about. And maybe they'll agree with you after you explain it. It can sometimes feel quite tedious, but we're supposed to use talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did add sources to the article. It's where the definition given in the last version of the article before they started violating policy came from! Prior to my rewrite of the lede on January 17, whose information is derived entirely from the sources I cited, the entire lede was uncited, as seen here.

I attempted to communicate with both editors on both my talk page and Chetvorno's and as i pointed out above, they engaged in the same type of dishonest manipulation that they've been doing to date. On Chetvorno's talk page, he claimed that I was the "only" editor who supported the version that I did (as if this somehow an immutable status that cannot change with when other editors join the matter), and that he and Fountains represent a "consensus" that supports his version. I'm not making that up; he actually argued that he and one other editor can be a "cosensus". Go ahead and check out his talk page to see this.

I have now engaged with them on the article's talk page, in which I asked Chetvorno the following:

I asked him point-blank whether his claims that the version I wrote (in which all of the information comes directly from the sources are cited) is "misleading" is derived from the cited sources, or whether it's his personal viewpoint.

I also asked him why he left a passage without a citation in his last edit. In the prior version, that passage had a cite.

I asked him how the new source he cited in the lede for the term's definition, Page 811 of The Modern Dictionary of Electronics, justifies his edits, given that the sole definition given for the term on that page is "Radiotelephone communications between fixed points (base stations) and portable units", which neither matches his insisted version nor justifies removing the partial definition I added away from the lede and down to the article body.

I do not anticipate any straightforward answers from him, given the way he and the others went silent when I asked him questions in that discussion last year, but hey, I asked the questions nonetheless. If he does not answer, then it is reasonable to observe that he is making edits based on his personal viewpoints and preferred vision for the passage, rather than on what the cited sources say, and this includes removing a source-supported definition for the term out of the lede without just cause, and leaving a passage without the citation it previously had, which is not an editorial dispute, but clear policy violations.

Will you monitor this?

The topic bores me too. I didn't intervene based on my level of interest or boredom. I intervened on the basis of the anti-citation brigade's persistent attempts to push their preferred practices of adding material based on their personal knowledge/opinion/experience/analysis, and I'm asking you to monitor the matter/intervene for the same reason. Nightscream (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, if it requires that many words and paragraphs to explain what's going on, maybe you should take it to WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja, it's a clear-cut case of policy violation, just as it was last year. Chetvorno has added material based on their personal knowledge, which violates WP:NOR/WP:V, removed a portion of the definition of the term from the lede without just cause, and left a passage that was previously cited without a citation. I asked him and others point blank about this on the talk page, and not suprisingly, they go silent, refusing to respond. Just read the talk page. (Is this a more appropriately succinct summary)? It's a no-brainer. Please just read the tp discussion. Or look at the edits. Nightscream (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja, the other editors are now continuing to edit the article again, without having answered any of my questions on the talk page, and having abandoned the discussion, their last post on it having been on Feburary 27. Isn't this is a blockable offense. Can you please intervene? Your interest in the general topic of the article or lackthereoff should not be a relevant criterion. They are violating policy and making disruptive edits, and ignoring the talk page discussion. Please respond. Nightscream (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is specifically my problem. I already suggested that you take this to ANI. If I have to be more blunt, OK: please stop badgering me about this and take your issue to ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.183.239.42 editing again

You blocked User:64.183.239.42 for block evasion 1 year ago, for 1 year. Since being unblocked, they have continued to edit similar articles. Please block again if you think it is the same block-evader. I really don’t know what to do, so i posted on WP:ANI, to which the user responded something like “unfortunately, the block has expired”, which almost proves they are the same user. I was then told to ask you, so here I am. What do you think? Illusion Flame (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. Seems like a static IP, so I made it 2 years this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Illusion Flame (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for some reason?

I've never edited a page. Only used talk and have only spoke like 3 times! Why did you block me? 2601:84:4501:78E0:C9DE:B6CF:8A4E:8962 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm the same person in an account now. Should be fixed now. Apologise Baconcartoonist (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies*** Baconcartoonist (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're not talking about an account that I blocked, you may have run into one of my range blocks designed to stop vandalism. Most of them are only for IP editors and won't affect people who have an account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hello, I saw that you increase a new protection level for a page, Vietnam, in 2021 and it is extend-protection and is long ago. I guess it might be necessary for you now to reduce the protection level? 2001:EE0:1A53:79C4:D875:7BF6:E04A:B301 (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two posts to the talk page this month, and both were vandalism. It doesn't seem to be impacting the page much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a page like this requires a lot of updates. A couple of requests don't tell how many possible updates could have been made. So this is rather overly preventive. 2001:EE0:1A53:79C4:D875:7BF6:E04A:B301 (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can reduce the protection level because this discourages new edits and updates to the page. 2001:EE0:1A18:3D0A:2015:8EC7:678D:535C (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes

The Wordsmith

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

Technical news

The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General Sanctions Violation on Michael Jackson’s Page

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Can you please have a look at the ongoing discussion and edit warring on Michael Jackson? Why isn't the General sanction no longer applicable to that page? How is the editor Bluesatellite getting away with this? As you can see [here], there is no consensus, and an ongoing discussion. The editor seems to not understand what consensus is and have started to edit war. Please provide attention to this matter when you can.TruthGuardians (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully protected the page for a couple days and notified Bluesatellite of general sanctions. Probably the best way to proceed to hold a request for comment, which will bring in uninvolved editors to help solve the dispute. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the action taken. Can you also please restore the last known stable version of the edit as well? The conversation was still on going and the editor reverted many other editors multiple times. The current edit is not agreed upon and thus should be a reflection of what the original edit before the edit warring. Thanks, Ninja. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ironic page about that. Admins don't usually get involved in content disputes. If there's an obvious consensus on the talk page to change the content, one could use {{Edit fully-protected}} to request implementation of that consensus. But it needs to be obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion

151.115.33.130 (talk · contribs) 151.115.45.193 (talk · contribs) 151.115.57.207 (talk · contribs)

I think there's an blocked editor who using multiple accounts for block evasion [16] [17] [18] [19]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a VPN service. We typically block them, so that one is blocked now, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch

Hey, yesterday you declined an unblock request (as you should have) as the response didn't come from the blocked persons IP which is 24.244.29.40. I am pretty sure that is the person that was posting inappropriate things that I removed earlier in the week. Anyway, my IP is 75.159.21.252 as you saw & pointed out. For whatever reason, I believe you guys were blocking the person from the other IP, as you should have, but somehow, I got blocked as well. Possible glitch?! You can see that my actual revisions on the living persons biography come from 2001:56a:fbe3:6e00:d988:5f7b:20e8:2eca. So I wanted to apologize for the confusion as I was the one requesting the unblocking and it wasn't until you said it was a different IP, did I ask my friend to help me better understand and find out what my IP was as I'm technically challenged. Again, sorry as I was pleading the case for someone who acted inappropriately to be unblocked thinking it was me. I should just stay off the internet. Haha 2001:56A:FBE3:6E00:D988:5F7B:20E8:2ECA (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By default, a block prevents the affected account or IP user from editing anything but their own talk page. If anyone can edit the talk page of a different account or IP address, they're not blocked. For a block to act differently, it would have to be a partial block, which is easily visible. If your IP address is being affected by blocks meant for a different IP address, there are two reasons why that might happen. The first one is because your IP traffic is being routed through that IP address for whatever reason – maybe a VPN if it's a school or work IP address. The second reason is a bug in our software, which is always possible but seems a bit unlikely. Mediawiki often feels like something from 1999, but it's actually quite impressive how well it works. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your reply. It seemed like a partial block. I can't remember exactly what it said on the block notification and I didn't think to screenshot it. I will say this, I had to call my service provider cuz there is some messed up stuff happening with my phone. Im connected to wifi pretty much all day everyday & suddenly, starting on this passed Monday, my data is being completely used up even tho I'm at home, and absolutely connected to wifi. They are trouble-shooting it as that isn't the only issues I am having. But, none the less, I will be more conscious of what's happening on here and how things work. This was a very big eye opener. Thanks again 2001:56A:FBE3:6E00:D988:5F7B:20E8:2ECA (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2402:3A80:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

This Vodafone India mobile IP range is still manipulated for disruptive editing and vandalisms in Indian pages following your block expired.1 . Airtel India and Jio India mobile are blocked already.117.252.204.173 (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My range block expired a long time ago. I don't even remember what it was about. And, really, any /32 will look disruptive. You'd have to be more specific. I don't feel like looking at hundreds of edits to see if there's been excessive disruption on this wide IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Hugzhoni

Hugzhoni (talk · contribs)

This editor is not being here to build an encyclopedia [20] [21], they also use another account as well [22]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The riddle of the Sphinx...

Hello,

I found missing information on the following link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx, searched for information on the subject on Wikipedia and added information already existing on Wikipedia.

They have been deleted and I consider it a censorship of the truth.
Please help me to remove these users (Apokryltaros and HMSLavender) who are deleting posts because of the censorship they practice.

Thank you very much,

Aurelian Virgil Dragne Aurelian Virgil Dragne (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'd have better luck adding that to as a "see also" link? A sphinx, after all, is a mythological beast. The other editors seem to think that a rock outcropping is off-topic for the article body. It's hard to tell exactly what their objection is because they're not using edit summaries, but that'd be my guess. To be diplomatic, you could suggest it on Talk:Sphinx to see if anyone has objections to that. @Apokryltaros and HMSLavender: it would help a lot if you guys used edit summaries. Rollback is supposed to be for vandalism, and if your only objection is formatting, WP:PRESERVE is pretty clear that reverting because of poor formatting is not a good idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps discuss it at Talk:Sphinx while limiting one's accusations of censorship? Edit summaries filled with such sorts of accusations tend to arouse suspicion. I mean, I've seen too many unconstructive edits made by "enemies of censorship" who turned out to be vandals or obsessed with pushing some specific point of view. My apologies for assuming such.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Apokryltaros,

Is this your real name?

Your message is in keeping with your attitude, as the Latins used to say: VERITAS ODIUM PARIT...

So, i think: si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses...

Thanks,

Aurelian Virgil Dragne Aurelian Virgil Dragne (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to convince anyone of anything beyond having a bad attitude and no manners if you enhance your false accusations of censorship with insults poorly disguised as haughtiness. Mr Fink (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NRP, see this editors talk page where copy/paste makes it look like you posted there. This business of someone with a username that clearly isn't their own and asking others about their real names... In any case, we may have a CIR issue. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doug Waller,

I seem to have annoyed a lot of people because I've added to the already existing Wikipedia information on that Sphinx article. The attached statements were not written by me, before you accuse me, you might want to look up what happened. There is a history with ISO DATES.

I didn't offend anyone, I wrote the obvious about what happened with my post.

I'm sorry I came to the conclusion that the information is censored on Wikipedia by certain users.

A few minutes after I posted, my post was deleted the reason being a trivial font .

Thank you,

Aurelian Virgil Dragne Aurelian Virgil Dragne (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aurelian Virgil Dragne I did not revert your edit on grounds of inaccuracy; it was very poorly formatted - however, I would like to apologise that I've decided to revert on that reason alone, instead of fixing the format or using a custom edit summary; it's apparent that the reversion led you to think that I was censoring your edits. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 15:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, it means a lot.

Peace & love Aurelian Virgil Dragne (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse

Do you have a response? That's just rude if you ignore my comments. Regards, Willbb234 13:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A response to what? If you're talking about your block, follow the instructions in Help:I have been blocked to appeal it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The response to the block made on my talk page 4 days ago. Willbb234 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this edit? As far as I can tell, you're just ranting about some other editor in contradiction to the guidance of WP:NOTTHEM. I believe my block was correct, so I will not be removing it. If you want another admin to review the block, you need follow the instructions I just posted above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of shit. You should learn to live with the consequences of your actions. You can't just block good editors and turn the other way. Typical admin behaviour. Willbb234 01:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

130.156.51.191

Hi! Can you have a look at this ? [23] unsourced additions today. Timur9008 (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone from New Jersey who obsessively adds unsourced categories? Pretty sure that's block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 494: / Line 494: @@
 The response to the block made on my talk page 4 days ago. [[User:Willbb234|Willbb234]] 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 : You mean [[Special:Diff/1144075290|this edit]]?  As far as I can tell, you're just ranting about some other editor in contradiction to the guidance of [[WP:NOTTHEM]].  I believe my block was correct, so I will not be removing it.  If you want another admin to review the block, you need follow the instructions I just posted above. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#top|talk]]) 17:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
+What a load of shit. You should learn to live with the consequences of your actions. You can't just block good editors and turn the other way. Typical admin behaviour. [[User:Willbb234|Willbb234]] 01:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 == 130.156.51.191 ==