| Revision as of 16:47, 27 December 2024 view sourceBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,548 edits →Administrative Action Review Request: remove unnecessary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:57, 21 January 2025 view source Bbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,548 edits →Personal attacks and constant disruptive behavior: re | ||
| (129 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 64 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == |
== Operaatio Arktis == | ||
| Please can you send me the draft text from the ] page that was deleted yesterday? I would like to edit and add to it before reposting ] (]) 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I got my shoulder replaced this week and my one-handed typing needs improvement. | |||
| ] (]) |
:I'm willing to move it to draft space if that's what you mean. Let me know.--] (]) 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| : |
::Yes that would be great, thank you. And apologies if I've not followed correct procedure here, I'm still learning ] (]) 12:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | :::Here it is: ]. You should use ] to develop it into an article. Good luck.--] (]) 13:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Great, thanks! ] (]) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Sherzod Abduvaitov == | ||
| Hi there! Thank you for reporting ]. He has created dozens of accounts and just will not stop. See ] for our local discussion. And ] is huge! Despite repeated warnings to stop creating new accounts, he has continued to do so. Local blocks have proven ineffective in addressing this issue. Is there any way to prevent this individual from creating new accounts? ] <sup>]</sup> 18:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Out of interest, why was the G11 declined (for The Misguided)? | |||
| ⚫ | :Sometimes there are ways, edit filters and IP blocks, but I can't help you with that.--] (]) 23:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Clarify about declining speedy deletion == | |||
| Kind regards, ] (]) 01:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| with due respect, I would like to know the reason of declining G11 to my recent tags. I had put those tags after careful reading the article and gone through references. Plz clarify the reason so that i can improve in future. Thank you 🙏 ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tpw}} {{yo| Axad12}} It's not irredeemably " exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". Some clean up is all it would need. ] (]) 02:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If you're going to ask me about why I removed a tag from an article, please mention the article, which is ]. The references have nothing to do with ]. What matters is the language, and although it's a poorly written, poorly sourced article, the language is not unduly promotional.--] (]) 17:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, thank you. | |||
| ::Got it. Thank you. That means if article looks promotional by language does it qualify for speedy deletion? I mean promotional language alone is sufficient ? Can we apply this tag if we know it’s obvious that written by someone closely connected. I hope you will clarify and help me understand it in much better way. Thanks ] (]) 17:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can I request clarification on one point, albeit that it was not relevant to the decision here? In my admittedly limited experience of speedy deletion requests it seems that some users are prepared to authorise speedy deletion of material in draftspace and some users are not. Is this just a question of the luck of the draw (in terms of who deals with a request) or is there some underlying policy issue which I'm failing to grasp and which therefore looks like inconsistency due to a misunderstanding on my part? | |||
| :::If you think an article is being written by someone "closely connected", that doesn't mean it qualifies for G11. G11 applies, as I said, when the language of the article is promotional. However, how promotion it must be before tagging for G11 is a judgment call. It depends on how much of the language is promotional compared to the overall size of the article and how intense the promotion is. I'm not sure that you have sufficient experience to make that determination.--] (]) 17:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any help on this point would be much appreciated. ] (]) 02:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can understand the message in your reply. Thank you for response . It helped. ] (]) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{yo|Axad12 }} I have stricter criteria for G11's that some (most?). Bbb23 is more insightfully incisive/decisive than I. There is a wide range of admin discretion at work, so sometimes it does depend on who sees it first, though I do not generally decline myself. ] (]) 02:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I will say though that I don't care where the promotional content is. If it meets my criteria, I will delete it, though I only do one iteration. ] (]) 02:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a fair amount of discretion on G11s, but mostly on the gray ones. I don't think this particular one was gray at all; indeed, I thought it was relatively well written.--] (]) 02:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed. ] (]) 02:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], that's a G11 that will most likely be declined by every admin, including me. Please keep that in mind when you put things up for speedy deletion. ] (]) 02:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To clarify... | |||
| :::::I nominated the article under G11 as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which it seemed to me was in accordance with the recent result of the declined AfC which described the draft as "reading like an advertisement". | |||
| :::::While accepting that the text might have been amended, the fact that the SPA creator had recently been blocked made that prospect rather unlikely. | |||
| :::::For the sake of my future understanding, where have I erred here? Is it the fact that the likelihood of clean-up is irrelevant and even if I was correct (and there were no future edits to the draft) it would have been deleted after 6 months anyway with no harm done? ] (]) 02:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn't particularly read like an advertisement either. Even assuming that ]'s comment that "The quotations from reviews are decidedly cherry-picked" is correct (I haven't checked), while that's still a neutrality issue, it's not one that calls for deletion of the draft - it would still be coherent if the Reception section were just removed. —] 03:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'd still be grateful for clarification on my post above (assuming, for the sake of argument, that a draft ''did'' read like an advertisement). ] (]) 05:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::For anyone trying to follow this thread, the page in question is ], and a block of the creator was . The article may continue to languish at AfC due to its issues but I agree with others that the page is not an obvious G11 candidate. ] (]) 06:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{yo|Axad12 }} Perplexingly, blocking does not always mean the content met ]. I weigh each candidate on its merits. Creator in this instance, "is indef blocked for ] and ] among many other issues," so that's apart from the quality of the draft in question. I infer the creator has a serious ] with more at stake than, "don't delete my babies!' Having ones "babies" deleted is traumatic enough on its own. Hope that helps. ] (]) 09:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed that the block was unrelated to the quality of the article - although the user could as easily have been blocked as a promo only account if he hadn't made a complete fool of himself at ANI. | |||
| :::::The reason I mentioned the user being blocked was because that meant that the draft was unlikely to be improved - but as I said above, presumably that is irrelevant if it means that the draft would then just remain unpublished for 6 months and then get deleted. ] (]) 09:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Speaking as an administrator who had a lot of frustrating interactions in the last week with the blocked editor, I too agree that the draft does not qualify for G11 deletion. We should not let the fact that the primary author behaved like a monumental pain in the ass cloud our assessment of the draft. ] (]) 10:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As I mentioned above, the G11 nomination wasn't due to the pedigree of the creator but was rather to do with the comments left by the AfC reviewer - albeit that I now see that that was not grounds for a G11 nomination in any event. | |||
| :::::::Thanks all for clarifying my understanding of the process, very much appreciated. ] (]) 10:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == If you could please permanently block my account that would be great. == | |||
| == Happy Holidays! == | |||
| You guys are now attacking me because I reported what I thought wrong, now I know they have very specific criterias for what is vandalism, and that they don't remove peoples talk messages even if they are vandalism. I saw I was in the wrong and I said this on the thing, I'm not an expert on Misplaced Pages, and now I know better thanks to you guys. The only other thing I did was correct someone who was saying he didn't edit a closed AfD, which I discovered he did I told him this. Now I also know that is not a big deal either. But now you guys are insulting me. "SubhanAllah" means "Oh how perfect is God" or "All glory is due to God", and as Muslims we say this when we are surprised or shocked or something bad happens. I don't see the issue with saying this, or maybe there's a rule against that too. I also already said I didn't edit for months because I have other things to do. I just edit here sometimes if I want to correct something or fix something. If one of you guys could please permanently block my account that would be great, since you guys want to come after me now, and I don't want to be an editor here anymore. I don't have time to be here all the time you get me ] (]) 17:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border: 3px solid #01902a; background-color:#fff; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="border: 2px solid red; background-color:#fff; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| ⚫ | :If you don't want to edit Misplaced Pages anymmore, just stop editing.--] (]) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Request == | |||
| ] (]) is wishing you a ] ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! | |||
| @], nice to meet you, I am Nelson. I would like to request you to help remove and revdel the parts about what I am doing in real life, because Janessian somehow got clues of what I did and I never revealed it to him. I hope to have the content related to my personal stuff taken down and wish that it will truly be the end of the episode because I certainty do not want to be dragged into the mud for the matter itself (much less the legal part), which had been affecting me for the past few days. ] (]) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.'' | |||
| </div></div> ] (]) 08:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], and I do not wish to be involved with this issue as much as I want to speak up. I just hope for the matter to be resolved as soon as possible. ] (]) 05:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy holidays! == | |||
| ::Nelson, assuming you're talking about ], such edits should be suppressed, not rev/deleted. Please follow the instructions at ] to have that done.--] (]) 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:golden; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| :::by the way, thank you for the help you rendered throughout this process. It is really a painful case going on here, and I sincerely hope it can end and I also wish to move on, @]. ] (]) 11:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| {{re|NelsonLee20042020}} I will interject here and say: The information that particular user has about you is because that information is literally at the top of your talk page. You told another separate user publicly about what you were doing in real life and he's seen it there most likely. Perhaps in the future be a bit more cautious posting details about your personal life online. But I wouldn't worry about it anyway because it's extremely vague, but be aware of this going forward. ] (]) 14:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Joeypike2021 == | |||
| == Reverted warning == | |||
| Hey, Joeypike2021 you blocked but they are using their talk page inappropriately afterwards so may need a talk page revoke. Cheers ] (]) 21:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::Thanks anyway, and thanks for all your help ]ing all the 'problems' this year. Happy holidays to you and yours. ] (]) 23:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::: |
||
| Hi Bbb23. I saw that you {{diff2|1270860210|reverted a warning}} I left to a user about spamming on their talk page. Can you tell me what you found objectionable about it? I've left nearly identical warnings dozens of times before, but this is the first time anyone has taken issue with it. Thanks. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy Holidays == | |||
| :Two things. First, the warning was stale, meaning the user had posted the promotional material ''before'' I blocked them. Second, you cannot phrase a warning the way you did: "If you post ] to this page again, even just once more, you will lose access to it as well." You could, I suppose, saying something like "you may lose access to it as well". Even the first part of your warning was a bit over-the-top: "While your account is blocked, the only acceptable use of this page is to appeal your block in the manner described above." That's not quite true. The user is allowed some latitude to discuss their block without making an unblock request. As an admin, I evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis. Hope that helps.--] (]) 19:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attacks and constant disruptive behavior == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
| ---- | |||
| '''Hello Bbb23, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br /> | |||
| ] (]) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello @], could you please help with @]? Apart from calling me names (loser etc) they insist edit warring on the ] weatherbox. It's been going on forever. Maybe months. They keep ignoring friendly requests (I ve left messages on their talk page warning them etc) and even other editors have pointed out the chronic non constructive behavior. Here a few difs , , . ] (]) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' | |||
| :It looks to me like you should take this to ], but it won't look good for you that you are calling the other user's edits "vandalism".--] (]) 19:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| |} ] (]) 23:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Socking at Moorgate tube crash == | |||
| At I see only one user - {{useranon|81.111.22.107}} - expunging the term "motorman", but one revert by yourself with the edit summary "revert sock". Who are they a sockpuppet of? --] 🦌 (]) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| == Possible sock? == | |||
| Not sure if this would be prefer to have a new SPI page created or not, but I've stumbled across the account '' which (at least to me) appears to be similarly-named to the blocked account ''. Along with that, both have a similar, "I am ______ and joined Misplaced Pages on _______" opening intro, Harold's on the userpage and Jake's on their talk page. It also that Harold attempted editing Untamed1910's talk page, which Jake has previously edited. | |||
| I also decided to report it here rather than make an SPI page as I see Jake's block is for sockpuppetry, but from what I'm seeing, it's not to avoid a block on another account (unless I'm missing something). Thanks. ] (]) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Also looking a bit more into it, there appears to be both a '' and '' account. Also not 100% sure here, but looks a bit similar to ... so maybe it is a possible block evasion case altogether? Unless my mind is playing tricks on me at 5am, lol. ] (]) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you haven't already, you should look at that tortured conversation I had with Jake on his Talk page. I've blocked Harold as a sock of Jake, but I see no point in blocking the other accounts, even if they're obvious socks, who haven't edited in a while - that would include the two Knowledgeseeker accounts. However, if you're interested in finding more, you could file an SPI and request a CU. It's highly unlikely I'll find them on my own because I don't pay any attention to the articles they edit. Feel free to come here, though, if you see a new one. Thanks! --] (]) 15:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an action which you performed. The thread is ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:XRV-notice--> ] (]) 16:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:57, 21 January 2025
Operaatio Arktis
Please can you send me the draft text from the Operaatio Arktis page that was deleted yesterday? I would like to edit and add to it before reposting Thisredrock (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm willing to move it to draft space if that's what you mean. Let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that would be great, thank you. And apologies if I've not followed correct procedure here, I'm still learning Thisredrock (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here it is: Draft:Operaatio Arktis. You should use WP:AFC to develop it into an article. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! Thisredrock (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here it is: Draft:Operaatio Arktis. You should use WP:AFC to develop it into an article. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that would be great, thank you. And apologies if I've not followed correct procedure here, I'm still learning Thisredrock (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Sherzod Abduvaitov
Hi there! Thank you for reporting this user. He has created dozens of accounts and just will not stop. See uz:Vikipediya:Administratorlar forumi#Abduvaitov_Sherzod for our local discussion. And this list is huge! Despite repeated warnings to stop creating new accounts, he has continued to do so. Local blocks have proven ineffective in addressing this issue. Is there any way to prevent this individual from creating new accounts? Nataev 18:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sometimes there are ways, edit filters and IP blocks, but I can't help you with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Clarify about declining speedy deletion
with due respect, I would like to know the reason of declining G11 to my recent tags. I had put those tags after careful reading the article and gone through references. Plz clarify the reason so that i can improve in future. Thank you 🙏 Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're going to ask me about why I removed a tag from an article, please mention the article, which is Universal Engineering & Science College. The references have nothing to do with WP:G11. What matters is the language, and although it's a poorly written, poorly sourced article, the language is not unduly promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. Thank you. That means if article looks promotional by language does it qualify for speedy deletion? I mean promotional language alone is sufficient ? Can we apply this tag if we know it’s obvious that written by someone closely connected. I hope you will clarify and help me understand it in much better way. Thanks Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you think an article is being written by someone "closely connected", that doesn't mean it qualifies for G11. G11 applies, as I said, when the language of the article is promotional. However, how promotion it must be before tagging for G11 is a judgment call. It depends on how much of the language is promotional compared to the overall size of the article and how intense the promotion is. I'm not sure that you have sufficient experience to make that determination.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can understand the message in your reply. Thank you for response . It helped. Rahmatula786 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you think an article is being written by someone "closely connected", that doesn't mean it qualifies for G11. G11 applies, as I said, when the language of the article is promotional. However, how promotion it must be before tagging for G11 is a judgment call. It depends on how much of the language is promotional compared to the overall size of the article and how intense the promotion is. I'm not sure that you have sufficient experience to make that determination.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. Thank you. That means if article looks promotional by language does it qualify for speedy deletion? I mean promotional language alone is sufficient ? Can we apply this tag if we know it’s obvious that written by someone closely connected. I hope you will clarify and help me understand it in much better way. Thanks Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
If you could please permanently block my account that would be great.
You guys are now attacking me because I reported what I thought wrong, now I know they have very specific criterias for what is vandalism, and that they don't remove peoples talk messages even if they are vandalism. I saw I was in the wrong and I said this on the thing, I'm not an expert on Misplaced Pages, and now I know better thanks to you guys. The only other thing I did was correct someone who was saying he didn't edit a closed AfD, which I discovered he did I told him this. Now I also know that is not a big deal either. But now you guys are insulting me. "SubhanAllah" means "Oh how perfect is God" or "All glory is due to God", and as Muslims we say this when we are surprised or shocked or something bad happens. I don't see the issue with saying this, or maybe there's a rule against that too. I also already said I didn't edit for months because I have other things to do. I just edit here sometimes if I want to correct something or fix something. If one of you guys could please permanently block my account that would be great, since you guys want to come after me now, and I don't want to be an editor here anymore. I don't have time to be here all the time you get me TopVat19sEver (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you don't want to edit Misplaced Pages anymmore, just stop editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Request
@Bbb23, nice to meet you, I am Nelson. I would like to request you to help remove and revdel the parts about what I am doing in real life, because Janessian somehow got clues of what I did and I never revealed it to him. I hope to have the content related to my personal stuff taken down and wish that it will truly be the end of the episode because I certainty do not want to be dragged into the mud for the matter itself (much less the legal part), which had been affecting me for the past few days. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bbb23, and I do not wish to be involved with this issue as much as I want to speak up. I just hope for the matter to be resolved as soon as possible. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nelson, assuming you're talking about WP:OUTING, such edits should be suppressed, not rev/deleted. Please follow the instructions at WP:OS to have that done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- by the way, thank you for the help you rendered throughout this process. It is really a painful case going on here, and I sincerely hope it can end and I also wish to move on, @Bbb23. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nelson, assuming you're talking about WP:OUTING, such edits should be suppressed, not rev/deleted. Please follow the instructions at WP:OS to have that done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@NelsonLee20042020: I will interject here and say: The information that particular user has about you is because that information is literally at the top of your talk page. You told another separate user publicly about what you were doing in real life and he's seen it there most likely. Perhaps in the future be a bit more cautious posting details about your personal life online. But I wouldn't worry about it anyway because it's extremely vague, but be aware of this going forward. Inexpiable (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Reverted warning
Hi Bbb23. I saw that you reverted a warning I left to a user about spamming on their talk page. Can you tell me what you found objectionable about it? I've left nearly identical warnings dozens of times before, but this is the first time anyone has taken issue with it. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two things. First, the warning was stale, meaning the user had posted the promotional material before I blocked them. Second, you cannot phrase a warning the way you did: "If you post promotional content to this page again, even just once more, you will lose access to it as well." You could, I suppose, saying something like "you may lose access to it as well". Even the first part of your warning was a bit over-the-top: "While your account is blocked, the only acceptable use of this page is to appeal your block in the manner described above." That's not quite true. The user is allowed some latitude to discuss their block without making an unblock request. As an admin, I evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis. Hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Personal attacks and constant disruptive behavior
Hello @Bbb23, could you please help with @Ileagae? Apart from calling me names (loser etc) they insist edit warring on the Athens weatherbox. It's been going on forever. Maybe months. They keep ignoring friendly requests (I ve left messages on their talk page warning them etc) and even other editors have pointed out the chronic non constructive behavior. Here a few difs , , . Weatherextremes (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you should take this to WP:ANI, but it won't look good for you that you are calling the other user's edits "vandalism".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)