| Revision as of 15:26, 29 January 2023 editMuZemike (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users71,095 edits →A very, very, very old block: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:46, 29 January 2023 edit undoFermiboson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers2,415 edits →A very, very, very old block: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| Hi, this may come a bit out of the blue, and I'm sure you don't remember anything. I was scrolling around random articles and their edit histories when I noticed that one ] was blocked by you in 2010 for sockpuppeting. The account appears to be one of those accounts which spam-creates geographical stubs (a practice which, as I understand, is no longer accepted nowadays but was acceptable at the time). Around the time of the block, there was a bit of a heated discussion at ANI and the user had blanked the user/talk page. I could, however, find absolutely no trace of sockpuppeting even being mentioned in any of these instances. Is there a reason for this? Regards, ] (]) 06:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | Hi, this may come a bit out of the blue, and I'm sure you don't remember anything. I was scrolling around random articles and their edit histories when I noticed that one ] was blocked by you in 2010 for sockpuppeting. The account appears to be one of those accounts which spam-creates geographical stubs (a practice which, as I understand, is no longer accepted nowadays but was acceptable at the time). Around the time of the block, there was a bit of a heated discussion at ANI and the user had blanked the user/talk page. I could, however, find absolutely no trace of sockpuppeting even being mentioned in any of these instances. Is there a reason for this? Regards, ] (]) 06:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
| :Looking at ], the user was blocked as a sock back when I was an admin and CU, presumably per CU evidence. The sockmaster, whom I did not disclose, was warned privately not to sock again, according to that discussion. Any other information I would have about that specific case would be long gone, I'm afraid. --] 15:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | :Looking at ], the user was blocked as a sock back when I was an admin and CU, presumably per CU evidence. The sockmaster, whom I did not disclose, was warned privately not to sock again, according to that discussion. Any other information I would have about that specific case would be long gone, I'm afraid. --] 15:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
| ::Alright, thank you very much for the reply. ] (]) 15:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:46, 29 January 2023
Credit: Diego Delso
Subpages: Articles worked on · Good article reviews · GA standards · common.css · common.js
Archives as of the dates listed (250KB or more to load; threads more than 3 days to be archived by bot or earlier upon personal discretion; displayed in order of date of last thread):
- 2009-04-29 · 2009-10-17 · 2010-01-09 · 2010-04-27 · 2010-08-12 · 2010-11-21 · 2010-03-10 · 2011-08-07 · 2012-01-28 · 2012-09-17 · present
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
Birmal Hembram.
I just finished cleaning up the mess made by these two block evading accounts: User:Dolon Provas,User:Muchiram hansda. I'm not a big fan of allowing the Birmal Hembram. (with a period) article to existing for any amount of time, given it's provenance. Any objections to a speedy? The subject's name is not mentioned on any of the reliable sources; it's only mentioned on the two self-published sources. As far as I can tell, the medium source is simply a copy of one of the other articles with the subjects name inserted. OhNoitsJamie 14:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have no objections. It looked like the 2nd source was a little suspect, also. --MuZemike 14:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Page Amir Mohammad Nekounam
Hi,I have a request to remove the tags from Amir Mohammad Nekounam's page Reason:
I have added credible sources to Amir Mohammad Nekounam's page in the past few days A2004b (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not how it works. Please comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amir Mohammad Nekounam, as been pointed out to you several times. Continual removing of the tags from the page may result in your block from an admin. --MuZemike 16:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Please agree with me because I have added the desired resources and I do not know where the problem is and so I removed the tags but now I ask you to remove the tags according to the available resources A2004b (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Again, that's not how the process works. Please reread the comment I just made above and comment in the deletion discussion there. --MuZemike 16:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Singapore
Thanks for helping out at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Singapore, but, well, the one that closed the AfD as "speedy keep" is the article creator, not the nom or an uninvolved editor. They have done this twice, and have also removed the AFD notice from the article repeatedly. I don't want to keep edit warring over it, better to let someone uninvolved handle it. Fram (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, didn't see that. I was just trying to fix the AfD close so that it didn't affect the rest of the discussions on WP:AFD/T. --MuZemike 12:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion
Hello, MuZemike! You might be interested in endorsing an essay in which creation I participated – WP:NOCONFED. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria 22:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
A very, very, very old block
Hi, this may come a bit out of the blue, and I'm sure you don't remember anything. I was scrolling around random articles and their edit histories when I noticed that one User:Starzynka was blocked by you in 2010 for sockpuppeting. The account appears to be one of those accounts which spam-creates geographical stubs (a practice which, as I understand, is no longer accepted nowadays but was acceptable at the time). Around the time of the block, there was a bit of a heated discussion at ANI and the user had blanked the user/talk page. I could, however, find absolutely no trace of sockpuppeting even being mentioned in any of these instances. Is there a reason for this? Regards, Fermiboson (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218#User:Starzynka, the user was blocked as a sock back when I was an admin and CU, presumably per CU evidence. The sockmaster, whom I did not disclose, was warned privately not to sock again, according to that discussion. Any other information I would have about that specific case would be long gone, I'm afraid. --MuZemike 15:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you very much for the reply. Fermiboson (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)