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 13:44, 12 September 2011 editPhilKnight (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators125,847 edits →External links are being deleted without justification: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:51, 7 January 2025 edit undoToddy1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,736 edits Undid revision 1267897498 by Kibbutz1967 (talk) you are not allowed to do thatTag: Undo 
Line 3: Line 3:
{{clear}} {{clear}}


==Deletion review for ]==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 02:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
==Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on ]==


== You missed ==
Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on {{user|Communicat}} at ] and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you ] (]) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


… the master of {{noping|Abu4real1995}}: {{noping|Joseph4real1995}}. Best, ] 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== Manchester wikimeet ==


: No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. ] (]) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Phil. It's a shame you couldn't make the Manchester wikimeet last month. The next one's going to be on 17 September, if you're interested in coming - more info at ]. Please sign up if you're coming, and also please sign up on the notification list if you want me to nag you about future Manchester meets. :-) Thanks. ] (]) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (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, ] 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:Hi Mike, thanks for letting me know. Hopefully I'll be able to make the 17 September wikimeet. ] (]) 21:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
::: I have re-blocked them. ] (]) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Assistance ==
== Tree shaping proposed decision==
All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment about this. ] ]</span> 08:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


"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)
==Name Change==
I am considering changing my ID from Jeepday to my given name. I don't really have anything to hide on a personal level, so I imagine it would only be technical challenges. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on topic?
* Are there Technical challenges, ?
* On a personal level, what are your thoughts when you changed?
*] <small>(])</small> 23:09, 12 July 2011 (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)
:Hi Jeepday, when I changed my username, I only changed my name on Misplaced Pages, on the other projects, Commons, Wiktionary and so on, I just created another account, and redirected the old one. I guess to make the change on other projects properly, you should contact a local crat. On a personal level, there was a small advantage in some cases where someone is slightly more polite because of editing under a real name. However this is balanced by perhaps more stress in some situations, where someone is angry and name calling - I think it's slightly easier to be detached when someone is saying 'Addhoc you're an idiot', because 'Addhoc' was only a username. Anyway, hope this helps. ] (]) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


::: I agree with Aoidh's . ] (]) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:: That helps thank you, ] <small>(AKA, ])</small> 10:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
==]==
How can you recommend a mediation if the issue comes from a mediation?: Please, take a look to ], Best regrads, --] (]) 20:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:Hi Keysanger. Thanks for explaining, under the circumstances, I guess the next stage should be either a ] or ]. ] (]) 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
== Template:Poster rationale listed at ] ==
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Template:Poster rationale'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


==]==
== ] and 1RR / Reverts by ] ==
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've been working on cleaning up ] (an Isaeli military operation), and unfortunately another editor ] (who has a pro-Israel user box) keeps on adding false, ridiculous claims that the operation is somehow related to a US military operation. The article has a 1RR restriction due to ], but ] has ignored this and made multiple reverts just now. Can you please take a look at this? ] (]) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (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)
:Hi Dimension31, sorry for not replying earlier. Infractions of the 1RR restriction should be reported to the ] noticeboard. However, you should be aware that if you have gone over 1RR, you could also be sanctioned. ] (]) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


== Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits. ==
== Template:University rationale listed at ] ==
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Template:University rationale'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 13:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
==Tree shaping RfM==
You may remember a recent Arbcom decision in which editors were requested to agree on an appropriate name for the article currently at ]. There has been a careful discussion on the subject, followed by an RfM which was hastily closed as 'No action' by involved administrator SilkTork. Was this what was envisaged by Arbcom? Perhaps you could take a look and give your opinion. ] (]) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (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)
== ] ==


: You should use the talk page - ] - to establish ], and not ]. ] (]) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello PhilKnight, I have prepared an drive yesterday to get the most images moved to the ]. It is at ]. It will start at {{time ago|00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)}} or more precisely at 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC). There are some awards you may get. You may sign up now. We need lots of sysops too to delete the moved images (backlog may be made). ~~]~~ <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
::Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


==Adding a party== == Hello!!! ==
Hi. Is it ok if I do that?] (]) 17:49, 14 August 2011 (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)
:Hi. I've posted on the arbitration mailing list asking whether there any objections to adding him as a party. If there are no objections, I'll request that a clerk adds him. ] (]) 17:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for posting.] (]) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (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 ]. ] (]) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== RFCCOM ==
::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 ]==
Just to re-interate what I said in the abortion case I think its a bloody good idea. You should take it forward. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 21:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
] 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)
: Thanks. In all honesty, the essay was prompted by a comment made by ] in the last ArbCom election, and heavily influenced by discussion on the ArbCom mailing list. ] (]) 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
::I think as a first step towards this having somewhere to request RFC's to be formally closed as that makes ones that aren't ultra clear possible to move forward from, and secondly having somewhere high-profile to list controversial discussions would probably be good too. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 21:02, 31 August 2011 (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)
== ] of ] ==
:Looking further in the socking, it looks like ] and ] could well be one and the same. ] (]) 00:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <font color="#082567">]</font> <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup> <sub><font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 08:51, 20 August 2011 (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)
== Content arbtration thoughts ==
:::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 ==
Having seen your comments at ], you might be interested in what I've been working on ]. Best regards, ] (]) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
==Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies (motion to close)==
]


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Hi - There appears to be a motion to close this case later today. In the case that you have not noticed - there are two new proposals predented by Newyorkbrad - and - that you have not voted in. Thank you for your attention to this. - ] (]) 01:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
:Hi Off2riorob, thanks for letting me know. ] (]) 02:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:] ]
::No worries, many thanks for the attention. ] (]) 02:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
==Talkback==
|]
{{talkback|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case|ts=03:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)}}
|]
Hi PhilKnight,
}}
You have previously voted to decline the case against La goutte de pluie because of an open RfC/U against the user, including possible sanctions being discussed. I have presented a new diff in my section to show that it is highly unlikely the RfC will be successful (considering RfCs are non-binding), and would like to request that you revisit the situation. Thanks. ] (] • ]) 03:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
:::Hi Strange Passerby, thanks for letting me know. I notice that Jimbo has posted in the discussion on Elle's user talk, and explained the situation. In my understanding the community can issue binding sanctions, that is, enforceable by blocks, and in this context, I consider there is a good chance that the community will be able to resolve this situation. There's some information about this process at ]. ] (]) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
|]
: I am however, open to considering many other remedies proposed. I am simply not convinced that the editors involved are at all informed of the issues at hand before they called for some blanket prohibition. (Similarly, unlike how they advocated, an IP rangeblock against problematic IPs is untenable, because it would involve blocking half of Singapore.) Furthermore, unlike many other editors with much free time on their hands, I have not been going around different talk pages canvassing potential allies, so it is my impression that the sample of commenters on the RFC may be problematic. ] (]) 03:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
|]
::: In which case, I suggest you consider voluntarily following restrictions along the lines of those being discussed. ] (]) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
|]
:::: Currently, most of the commenters at the RFC are people who I have opposed in editing disputes -- they are really parties to the case. I really thought I had no real conflict with Zhanzhao and Strange Passerby, as I take it, I was only using the ] for a part of the project that is ill-watched. ] (]) 17:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== External links are being deleted without justification ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
I am the Executive Director of Earthwave Society, a non-profit educational organization dedicated to conservation through information and education. I have made 3 attempts this evening, possibly 4, at adding an external link to Earthwave Society on the following Wiki pages:
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
Alligator Gar - http://en.wikipedia.org/Alligator_gar - added an external link to www.earthwave.org/gar.htm
</div>
Piping Plovers - http://en.wikipedia.org/Piping_Plover - added an external link to www.earthwave.org/plover.htm
Paddlefish - http://en.wikipedia.org/Paddlefish - added an external link to www.earthwave.org/paddlefish.htm
Sturgeon - http://en.wikipedia.org/Sturgeon - added an external link to www.earthwave.org/sturgeon.htm
Crayfish - http://en.wikipedia.org/Least_Tern - added an external link to www.earthwave.org/crayfish.htm


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Each time I added an external link, one of the volunteer editors deleted it for invalid reasons, including "link not necessary", or "promotional", or "spam", etc. The user names of the editors I can recall are Dream_Focus, Kuru, and Smarkflea. It appears they are all playing some kind of silly game on Misplaced Pages, and will absolutely not listen to reason. I have met all of Wiki's requirements for adding an external link, and can see no reason why I'm having to go through such nonsense. If you will please review our index page, and mission statement, you will see that Earthwave Society is a legitimate non-profit organization that often works in cooperation with both Federal & State Resource Agencies, including the US Fish & Wildlife Service. I personally chose the above listed Wiki sites because they focus on species we have covered extensively over the years. Earthwave Society actually pioneered the very first video documentation of alligator gar, paddlefish, and all seven North American species of sturgeon. Our conservation efforts have received international acclaim, and our programs have been utilized by the USF&WS for public awareness projects, and educational kiosks. Our video documentation has been distributed to public libraries, schools, and universities around the world, and it has been broadcast internationally at Wildlife Film Festivals, etc. A link to Earthwave Society certainly deserves a listing in Misplaced Pages on relevant sites. I will be extremely appreciative if you will look into this, and do whatever you feel is fair and necessary. Thanking you in advance....
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* 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.
Betty Wills username: Atsme
] '''Technical news'''
] (]) 04:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
* 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'''
:Firstly, the editors you've mentioned are acting entirely within Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Secondly, the external links you keep adding are to videos which are for sale. In this context, I suggest you stop trying to add external links to your website. ] (]) 09:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
* 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}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
::Unbelievable. Your assessment is totally incorrect. BY LAW Earthwave Society is not allowed to be in the retail business selling videos for profit. If we did, our non-profit status would be revoked. We have Determination Letters from both the IRS, and our State Government that specifically qualify Earthwave Society as a NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION, so how can you say we are retailers selling videos? I have personally reviewed and updated the Earthwave Society web site to make sure there wasn't anything that could be misinterpreted as being FOR SALE, and there isn't. Earthwave Society has contributed a great deal of time, energy and resources in teaching conservation, and helping save endangered species. National Geographic News has listed Earthwave Society's website as an important reference, as have a number of Universities, including Berkley, Missouri Education, and the like. External links to Earthwave Society have been all over Misplaced Pages for quite some time, including sites in other languages, and there has never been a problem until now. Again, the documentation and resources available on the Earthwave Society website are not FOR SALE unless you also consider Misplaced Pages's solicitation for contributions as SELLING ACCESS which is a rather skewed interpretation in both instances. Our business is not "selling" videos anymore than it's Wiki's business to sell access disguised as contributions. We distribute educational information, some of which is available on DVD, but that's only a small part of what we do. The program content is a FREE resource, but if you can't view it at our office, and want your own personal copy, you have to pay the duplication fee, and shipping & handling charges. Show me where it says in the Misplaced Pages EXTERNAL LINK GUIDELINES that you are prohibited from adding an external link to a valuable resource unless the material is shipped free??? We also don't assess any exhibition fees for showing our programs to an audience. If we did, the cost would be $225 plus S&H, and the DVD would have to be returned after a specified amount of time. Earthwave Society has never asked for anything more than CONTRIBUTIONS the same way Wiki asks for CONTRIBUTIONS. At this point, I feel as though we're being discriminated against, so I am now forced to take this issue to someone higher up in the chain of command.
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
::] (]) 11:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme


----
:::I agree with Kuru's assessment that adding links such as are an attempt to promote a product. Specifically, this particular video costs $15.95. From my perspective, saying that you're adding links to videos, which are for sale, is essentially correct, however I recognize that you hold a different view. Regardless, the addition of these links is against Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, so I confirm that my advice to discontinue adding external links to your website. ] (]) 13:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
{{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 ==

Hi admin can you remove ] this account was an sockpuppet of ] ] (]) 04:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:At least I'm not vandalism like you ] (]) 05:06, 7 January 2025 (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)
::::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)
::::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)
::::::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)