Misplaced Pages

User talk:PhilKnight: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:36, 31 August 2006 editDeleted14857 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,464 edits RfC Tatsuma← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:51, 7 January 2025 edit undoToddy1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,717 edits Undid revision 1267897498 by Kibbutz1967 (talk) you are not allowed to do thatTag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/archivelist}}
{{archive box|
__TOC__
* ]
{{clear}}
* ]}}




==Juan Martin== == You missed ==


… the master of {{noping|Abu4real1995}}: {{noping|Joseph4real1995}}. Best, ] 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi - i have decided to continue with my edits for Juan Martin - any facts that i include into the artist will be citable. I ask in the interests of good natured writing,that you simply dont delete what you feel is incorrect, my information about Juan martins texhnique for instance comes from many books and articles.] 10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


: No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. ] (]) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
==Thanks==
::Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, ] 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on the ] page. I was going through the tit for tat thing for ages and saw no hope in sight. You seemed to be the only person willing to help and I appreciate it. Nick ] 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::: I have re-blocked them. ] (]) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== ''Family Guy'' == == Assistance ==


"I am writing to request assistance regarding recent edits to the "Lovely Runner" article. editor Paper90ll has repeatedly removed information regarding ] achievment at the Asia Artist Awards. Despite these reversions, the user continued to rollback the changes and tagging me ] ]. I would appreciate guidance on how to resolve this ongoing dispute and ensure that the article accurately reflects the subject matter." ] (]) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
You're welcome. So, do you have an opinion on ]? ] 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


:@] As I had reply to ] at their talk page on the same cross-posted topic. It's truly lovely to have ] and ] to start 2025. On '']'', ] that removed "{{tq|Material that fails verification be removed}}" per ] with "{{tq|WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH}}" in the edit summary however so lovely we have ] that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "{{tq|WP:BITE WP:FAITH}}"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for ''Lovely Runner'' either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Misplaced Pages's policies. On ], believed to be related to ] which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to ] reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the ]. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per ] and didn't requires ]. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the ] violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? I would pretty much like you as an administrator to give me an reasonable explanation on such behaviour otherwise this behaviour would continue by going around administrator's talk page and cross-posting the same topic. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> 🎉🎆 ] 🎆🎉 <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Margana ==


::: I agree with Aoidh's . ] (]) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. I will ask em. --]<sup>(])</sup> 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


==]==
== MedCab ==
Hello, PhilKnight,


I saw that you closed this SPI case but the main sockmaster, Tuwintuwin, wasn't blocked at all. Was this an oversight? Just wondering as I've run into their editing this evening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I see that you're active at quite a few pages that are in the active caseload. Does this mean that you've joined us in our pursuits? Let me know. ] 17:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
:I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits. ==
Yes, I'm planning to join the cabal (not that it exists) after I get some more experience. I've only been editing for two months and lack understanding of many procedures. For example, if I had taken the ] case, at the start I wouldn't have realised the advice in ] states the description terrorist shouldn't be used. Also, if I had more experience, I would have a better appreciation regarding the consensus of what separates reliable from unreliable sources that was the central issue of ]. Hopefully, my editing doesn't get in the way... ] 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello. First of all, I wanted to say I'm really sorry for my wrongdoings. Second, the two users keep reverting my edits for "Nurburgring". I put the correct info for the Nordscheliefe section, but the two keep reverting it. Click this link and you will see that my info is correct: Anyway, please stop them from putting wrong data. Thank you, and again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== CSICOP ==
Thanks Adhoc. I added some comments to the CSICOP talk page explaining my corrections. I also restored my corrections, which Davkal deleted. I think you noticed that my factual corrections (and addition) are not involved in the material being mediated. Nevertheless, Davkal deleted them, incorrectly claiming that I had agreed not to correct anything in the article. Hardly. I was particularly amused by his statement that he removed my "claim" about what the Robert P. Balles 2005 Prize was awarded. No, I inserted a fact that's clearly in the Skeptical Inquirer source that was cited. And then he suggests that if the information must be included, a very derogatory opinion must be included with it. Who is '''''this''''' guy?


: You should use the talk page - ] - to establish ], and not ]. ] (]) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I haven't participated much in the CSICOP mediation to date because I have almost no knowledge of the dispute involving the Mars effect. I prefer to leave arguing out of ignorance to the woo-woos.] 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
::Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


==Johnny Lee Clary== == Hello!!! ==
I have been working on the Johnny Lee Clary article for a while now. It was deleted a while back (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Johnny_Lee_Clary) and I felt that it need to be revised. I have made a draft http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary#See_also and have also worked on ] and made ]. If you have any imput or suggestions it would be appriciated. Oh and by the way I don't watch much TV and have only ever seen half an episode of family guy (seriously), thus why I can't really comment. ] 08:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I was wondering how to archive stuff? And can you also mentor me as en wiki is different from simple en wiki? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 08:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== Peoples' Global Action ==


: Hi Cactusisme, you seem to have figured out how to archive stuff based on your user talk page. I don't mentor users, I suggest you find someone at ]. ] (]) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Addhoc. As you are somewhat engaged with the ] article, I was wondering if you would mind giving your opinion on a debate taking place on the Talk page between myself and ]. The subject of the controversy is whether or not sources support linking PGA to the concept of ]. See ]. Your opinion would add a useful third-party perspective. Thanks! - ] 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
::Alright, thanks!! ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::How about the bot? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" ] (]) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] Archiving bot ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. ] (]) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Anyone you know who uses it? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: Looking at ] {{u|Rosguill}} uses archivebot and is currently accepting adoptees. You could try them. ] (]) 12:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::ok ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


==Edit warring on ]==
== NikeTalk ==
] who you recently blocked continues to engage in edit warring on other articles, particularly on ] where he is persistently disrupting ]'s contributions. He is also being hostile on the ], which shows that he is ''']'''. Surely this warrants a stricter block? ] (]) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


:I know of at least one ] (obsessed with me and certain articles, such as ] and ]) who is from the same geolocation as you. For the rest, the article's talk page speaks for itself. ] (]) 00:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello Addhoc. You recently placed a 'delete' vote in the following article: ]
:Looking further in the socking, it looks like ] and ] could well be one and the same. ] (]) 00:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


:: I don't see evidence of serious edit warring. The sock puppet investigations will be actioned by other admins. ] (]) 05:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
You mentioned that you'd consider changing your vote if notability were further substantiated. Please check the article again, if you would. You'll find that the article has been completely rewritten by Wiki user Pixelface and all of the references check out. The included links to articles from Newsweek, Time, Adbusters magazine, the LA Times, and others are all valid and the site has independently collected webstats to verify its 85,000 unique visitor per day average.
:::Since the IP is hiding behind a proxy (blocked by Bbb23), then they could be any of my usual stalkers (hard to tell from a single comment). ] (]) 12:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
I think you'll agree that this crosses the notability threshold, and given that the article has been completely rewritten I'm hoping you'll consider changing your vote to 'keep.' Those who care about this entry have done everything asked of them. This issue shouldn't be decided by those who haven't taken but a second to judge it. Please take the time to review the sources and make the right call. It's possible that no one else will vote, and your decision may very well determine whether this little entry stays or goes.


] from the past month (December 2024).


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Thanks for your time. {{unsigned| 69.243.118.30}}
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
== ] ==
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
You asked to be found if secondary references could be found for the article. I found 2 and added them to the appropriate place. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
== Thanks and a Reply (from alan2012, aka AEL) ==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
You wrote, on my user_talk page:
:] {{hlist|class=inline
"If from outside of Misplaced Pages you have personal issues concerning persons who are
|]
unconvinced by the orthomolecular approach then either you shouldn't edit this article
|]
or you should be very careful not to consider other Wikipedians as guilty by supposed
|]
association."
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
Thanks.
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
FYI: I have no intention of editing the article. I indicated in one of my posts
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
that I cannot possibly be objective -- at least not at this moment, and probably
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
not for some time. I would consider it the job of someone else to sort through
] '''Technical news'''
the talk page stuff and make changes to the article that they deem appropriate.
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
It is not (quite) a matter of being "convinced by the OM approach".
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
That's not the main point of my posts. THe main point is to understand the total
dynamic that surrounds this issue, and the very powerful forces that underlie
the dynamic, and the way in which the pedestrian "skeptic" stuff plays-in
to the agenda of those forces. In other words it is a matter of ''understanding''
what is going on, not so much agreeing with one or other (trivial) system of medical
techniques. My very last posts today, I hope, outlined the bredth of the point I
am trying to make. My objective was to place the (relatively trivial) "OM" issue
in what I believe to be its proper, broad context.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
Also, I have no ''personal'' issues with anyone, i.e. with any individual. I am
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
talking about a social/group phenomenon. The specific individuals are quite
unimportant. I hope I made that clear, but maybe I failed. I consider other
individuals "guilty" not AS individuals so much as as participants in a social
and group/psychic process of which they might not be entirely aware (or even
aware at all). To whatever extent they ARE aware, then they do have some
personal responsibility.
Hope all that coheres.


----
Thanks again.
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->
== Happy New Year! ==
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:golden; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
'''Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025! ♦ ] (]) 02:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
</div>


== Help to block sockpupperty ==
aka "AEL" --> ] 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi admin can you remove ] this account was an sockpuppet of ] ] (]) 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== "Use short sentences and lists"? ==


:At least I'm not vandalism like you ] (]) 05:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on my talk page just now, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify. ] 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
::vandals? Even you are still used your bias results,vandals Majapahit-Sundanese conflict,even the Sack of Singapore? ] (]) 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::when? ] (]) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Wasn't my text, I was reverting it due to the temporary edit stop we had agreed upon for that article. We'll make sure to write it in a better way when it is edited later, after the mediation has run its course. ] 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::::25 December 2024 why you still forget about it huh? ] (]) 05:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't mind if you gonna tried many bias results in many article about Konfrontasi and tried to make many battles in Malay-Portuguese conflict ] (]) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== RfC Tatsuma ==
::::and? ] (]) 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::bro tried to be ligma, now even you still want to make many battles but still get removed by the administration now ] (]) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your comments and did reply (twice). I just wanted to leave a note here incase you're not watching that page, and I think you are right. I should have tried ] first, but after a month I just wasn't sure of how to deal with the situation on ], and an RfC was suggested by another editor via IRC. Anyway, thank you for your input. - ] 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::who ligma? ] (]) 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:That's the old account, why should it be leveraged again? And again, what's wrong with the account now, what's the point? ] (]) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I don't care if you still tried to conviced many wikipedian admin about those edits it was your old account,and those admin still tried to block you, even your block still not expired if those admins was blocked you ] (]) 05:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I created a new account ] (]) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::well goodbye if those admin still wanted to block your account they will searched your account even your new account to blocked it ] (]) 05:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::and those block was not have the expired date if you still tried to make many account ] (]) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::why do you have to be busy managing my account? ] (]) 05:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:51, 7 January 2025

Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

edit


You missed

… the master of Abu4real1995: Joseph4real1995. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I have re-blocked them. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Assistance

"I am writing to request assistance regarding recent edits to the "Lovely Runner" article. editor Paper90ll has repeatedly removed information regarding Lovely Runner achievment at the Asia Artist Awards. Despite these reversions, the user continued to rollback the changes and tagging me Ultraviolet Rollback. I would appreciate guidance on how to resolve this ongoing dispute and ensure that the article accurately reflects the subject matter." Puchicatos (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight As I had reply to Aoidh at their talk page on the same cross-posted topic. It's truly lovely to have WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS to start 2025. On Lovely Runner, my edit that removed "Material that fails verification be removed" per WP:VERIFY with "WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH" in the edit summary however so lovely we have this edit by our dear editor that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "WP:BITE WP:FAITH"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for Lovely Runner either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Misplaced Pages's policies. On List of awards and nominations received by Byeon Woo-seok, believed to be related to this discussion which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to this edit reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the documentation. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per WP:BOLD and didn't requires WP:CONSENSUS. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the WP:3RR violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? I would pretty much like you as an administrator to give me an reasonable explanation on such behaviour otherwise this behaviour would continue by going around administrator's talk page and cross-posting the same topic. — 🎉🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎉 (🔔 • 📝) 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Aoidh's comments. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin/Archive

Hello, PhilKnight,

I saw that you closed this SPI case but the main sockmaster, Tuwintuwin, wasn't blocked at all. Was this an oversight? Just wondering as I've run into their editing this evening. Liz 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! Liz 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits.

Hello. First of all, I wanted to say I'm really sorry for my wrongdoings. Second, the two users keep reverting my edits for "Nurburgring". I put the correct info for the Nordscheliefe section, but the two keep reverting it. Click this link and you will see that my info is correct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsLi7HgSuhI Anyway, please stop them from putting wrong data. Thank you, and again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You should use the talk page - Talk:Nürburgring - to establish consensus, and not edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello!!!

I was wondering how to archive stuff? And can you also mentor me as en wiki is different from simple en wiki? Cactus🌵 08:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cactusisme, you seem to have figured out how to archive stuff based on your user talk page. I don't mentor users, I suggest you find someone at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. PhilKnight (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright, thanks!! Cactus🌵 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
How about the bot? Cactus🌵 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@PhilKnight Archiving bot Cactus🌵 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone you know who uses it? Cactus🌵 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters Rosguill uses archivebot and is currently accepting adoptees. You could try them. PhilKnight (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
ok Cactus🌵 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring on Battle of Sidi Brahim

M.Bitton who you recently blocked continues to engage in edit warring on other articles, particularly on Battle of Sidi Brahim where he is persistently disrupting Robinvp11's contributions. He is also being hostile on the talk page, which shows that he is treating editing as a battleground. Surely this warrants a stricter block? 185.165.190.128 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I know of at least one highly disruptive sock (obsessed with me and certain articles, such as Dominican Restoration War and Dominican War of Independence) who is from the same geolocation as you. For the rest, the article's talk page speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking further in the socking, it looks like Norprobr and Phạm Văn Rạng could well be one and the same. M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of serious edit warring. The sock puppet investigations will be actioned by other admins. PhilKnight (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Since the IP is hiding behind a proxy (blocked by Bbb23), then they could be any of my usual stalkers (hard to tell from a single comment). M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025!  ♦ Maliner (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Help to block sockpupperty

Hi admin can you remove User:Kibbutz1967 this account was an sockpuppet of User:Mesbmr6710 Stratospheric78 (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

At least I'm not vandalism like you Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
vandals? Even you are still used your bias results,vandals Majapahit-Sundanese conflict,even the Sack of Singapore? Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
when? Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
25 December 2024 why you still forget about it huh? Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't mind if you gonna tried many bias results in many article about Konfrontasi and tried to make many battles in Malay-Portuguese conflict Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
and? Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
bro tried to be ligma, now even you still want to make many battles but still get removed by the administration now Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
who ligma? Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
That's the old account, why should it be leveraged again? And again, what's wrong with the account now, what's the point? Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't care if you still tried to conviced many wikipedian admin about those edits it was your old account,and those admin still tried to block you, even your block still not expired if those admins was blocked you Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I created a new account Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
well goodbye if those admin still wanted to block your account they will searched your account even your new account to blocked it Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
and those block was not have the expired date if you still tried to make many account Stratospheric78 (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
why do you have to be busy managing my account? Kibbutz1967 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)