User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63

So I just wanted to say the reason I know the school has around 1800 students is because I am in the school. As a student.it says on the class charts that it’s around 1800 people in school in total. JammyDole (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter what you know, or what I know from first-person experience. We can only accept WP:RELIABLE sources. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, ToBeFree, some more eyes on this poorly sourced and edited piece would be great. Also, is the most recent editor evading an earlier user block? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What a long and bizarrely vacuous edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy shit that is bad. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Drmies, and it's a bad that goes back years with many accounts. Perhaps it's all from one or a few people, using the article as a long term test page for fiddling. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure this is someone who's trying to make some ancestry case. I think it's better now. ;) Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Brilliant, as the British seem to say. Another barnstar I can't put on your talk page, Drmies. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. And I got two article improvements for the price of one... Drmies (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for future reference. Drmies, Melcous, this is a rather easy one, just a lot of unsourced, poorly written fancrap. I'll get to it within a few days if you don't first. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it's a long-term vanity project commandeered by the subject. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• ...have requested intervention at AIV and ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dave McDonald (radio personality) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article already seems to have been a magnet for edit warrers and COI editors, causing trouble that seems hardly worth the effort to police in the context of the minimal notability of the subject

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deb (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Deb. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For all your help on this website. It is always nice to see other IP addresses helping to positively contribute to this website. Cheers, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, too, 47. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Ohnoitsjamie, when you have a moment, please take a look at [1], as well as the edits to the article that led there. A new editor has met resistance re: original research that gets into controversial BLP territory, and is talking about publishing a piece off-Wiki to then use it as reference here. I'm leaning toward ANI, but any suggestions you have otherwise will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to suggest that you not take Jay's bait on Talk:Kathleen_Newman-Bremang. They are highly unlikely to get an article on their gripe published anywhere that we would consider acceptable for a BLP, much less get enough media attention to it to make it significant enough to mention. I'll be keeping the article on my watchlist to keep an eye on it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Schazjmd. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Drmies, ToBeFree, maybe you can do a rev/deletion of this [2], which was copied verbatim from its source. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"copied verbatim from its source" is perhaps not the best way to describe it. I'm hesitant to remove it as the source has been specified, there are few other ways to present the same data and the size of the copied material is such that adding quotation marks alone may already solve the problem. It's rather plagiarism than a copyright violation, and might not meet the "blatant violation of the copyright policy" requirement of WP:RD1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that rationale applied more aptly to their follow-up [3], in which quoted content was copied directly from the source, without inclusion of the quotation marks. Thank you, ToBeFree. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's an edge case and I wouldn't be surprised nor complain about anyone deleting it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference it should probably go to UAA. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 06:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, DatGuy. It was a tricky one, since I wasn't sure whether it was a username violation or the actual person. In the end, I hedged my bets at AIV. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, here's another free time project, should you feel so inclined. Lots of promotional/COI history, and a series of poorly sourced 'awards', including for non notable student years. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh wow. I have done a basic tidy up. Will see what happens ... Melcous (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Now PRODded. If this needs to get to AfD your input will be appreciated. Oh, socks confirmed and blocked. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, both. Just drop me a line, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing. Hey, I'm going through a list of sub-societies of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. That should have been done years ago. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Holy crap. Drmies, is there any reason to keep sections like 'membership grades' that are (almost) totally unsourced? And has anyone run a copyright check on the article, just in case? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like this, which is pretty much the same as the grades section, and has a copyright dating from 2013-14 [4]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just for fun: [5]. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Drmies, it's hard to believe an admin would restore all that, including external link cruft, and call it the last good version. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was surprised too. I know him as a solid editor and admin. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Maybe we're all wound a tad tight lately, Drmies. I was surprised both by this and the force of my response [6]. Tempest in a teapot. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • As for the Computer Science article, Drmies, apparently you cut too close to the user's interests. Maybe not WP:COI, but.... 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah. Thirteen years, though, is plenty of time to improve it... Drmies (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yep. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions, Drmies. The first is whether you see any sources that confirm place of birth, which has been the focus of much recent vandalism. The second is whether there's anything that can, or ought to be done about the disruptive 2404:160 IP range. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to know if you forgot to wear your lucky Alabama shirt today. It was more exciting than it should have been. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh oh. I've been following the Yankees' death spiral, and some US Open tennis. No idea what's going on in football, pro or college level. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm that is very disappointing. Baseball? I'd rather watch paint dry. I applied a block to that range, the /39 range, which was well-deserved: thanks for spotting it and making my job easier. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • At its best it's a thing of concentrated beauty. And most of the participants have a chance of reaching middle age with a majority of their wits--such as they possess--intact. But that's a topic to take up over lobster rolls and Belgian ale. You're entirely welcome. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of apparent WP:COI at these two bios. Drmies, Melcous, I've started things rolling. Feel free to have a look, time permitting. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Melcous. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies. My model canceled this afternoon, so it was wall-to-wall baseball, tennis and even some football worked into the mix. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two bios we've noticed before, Drmies: Julie Budd and Richard Grayson (writer). Might be legit, but there have been several accounts that look like paid contributors. Your thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Critical reception" at Eileen Myles: [7]. I suspect there's a trail like this through multiple bios. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Judith Ortiz Cofer, Tao Lin, Elaine Kraf.... 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• And this pleasantry when held to account [8]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake--not paid editing, just another soul who doesn't think the standards ought to apply to them [9]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And charming [10]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a report last night at AIV [11], to no avail. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Drmies, thanks for the warning. They've made many beneficial edits, and I may have been wrong to issue a paid editor warning, but there's been some real head-scratchers. Plus they're real quick to take offense, so I've no intention of returning to that user talk page. I don't usually solicit for a second invitation to hump myself. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did you one better. After seeing the CU blocks I placed earlier, I ran CU and found that HeddaLettis = Jiaxing Wu = Myrtle Mankiller. So here's what I think: there are probably more. If you have a minute, you could look through some of these histories and see if there's others that look similar in terms of behavior. And we'll need an SPI, so we can start tagging them. I'm about to make some chilaquiles, though. Oh, I don't know if they're related to User:66CATMAN etc.--see the SPI there. Those point to a different part of the country, so I think that's not the same person. But who knows! Drmies (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies, Given the behavior, why am I not surprised? Sudsy2022 (talk · contribs) may merit a look, but they're pretty dormant. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better still, Drmies, XavierDodo (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I think they're unrelated...at least from my investigation. Now, if you'll do me a favor--AYO Foods needs more meat on its bones! Drmies (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, they're the same. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK I remember now: they were so old they didn't show up in CU. I was confusing them with CATMAN and the others. I just placed the block. The question is, how far back it goes. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Drmies, my longshot bet is that it's the subject of this article [12], who we first encountered when they were editing as an IP, then posted to the article talk page about his displeasure with the editing experience. The editor behind these different accounts can write, knows how to source, and per our brief interaction, said they were older and wanted to give proper credit to writers of a previous generation. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • By the way, if that's considered 'outing' please rev/delete it. It's a theory, not an accusation. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really. Have a look at Scott Sommer, which I'll clean up another day. Feel free to have at it first. Also Melcous. One can follow the trail of promo bloat left by these accounts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🤣 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Ohnoitsjamie or ToBeFree, I've tried to get some response on broadening a rangeblock here [13] without success, so I'm reaching out to individual admins. Have also tried contacting the blocking admin [14]. I could just devote my evenings to reverting 80% of what emanates from this block evasion, which has been tied to this SPI [15]. Thanks for any help. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I was changing the block when I saw that it was actually a partial hard block, and I am somewhat hesitant about making a sitewide hard block. Sorry. Yamaguchi先生, can you have a look please? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Drmies. Of course, I don't know what's entailed, or how large a range this would encompass. But considering the edit history and how heavily it's weighted toward disruption, the current partial isn't doing the trick. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it. And I had my rationale written out already, including an apology to the Machiavelli editor. But the hard block means that there's socking/CU issues, and if a range block has collateral, the hard block (meaning users with accounts are blocked too) makes that a few factors worse. There may be someone who ran the checks and knows what it is about, and can make that judgment. Also, if I place a hard block, sitewide, for a relatively short amount of time (given the collateral damage), for instance, then the old partial block is gone, overwritten, and so those consequences have to be dealt with. Right now, I gotta run--class is over and I need to go by Aldi before I even have lunch, haha. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for the ping, but converting a /16 partial rangeblock to a full one is something I'd prefer to avoid doing quickly on request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the explanations. In the meantime, not withstanding Machiavelli and several other legit moves, that's a range that will, by all appearances, continue to entertain. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to block the range, but not a hard block. I still want to hear what the reason is for the hard block: that must mean socking. If, by tomorrow or so, there's a huge influx of new vandalism, I'll consider that. I looked at the articles that the partial block applies to, and it's quiet there, and some have long-term protection. If need be, we could protect others. Binksternet, you've worked on some of those articles to revert our vandal. So let's revisit this, tomorrow or the day after--does that work for you? In the absence of more information this is the best I can do. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The /16 range throws very different locations together. For instance, Special:Contributions/172.58.178.61 is from Texas, and represents block evasion by User:Rishabisajakepauler, a completely different vandal than the Youngstown music vandal. The Machiavellianism disruption includes Baltimore IPs such as Special:Contributions/172.58.185.116. There are constructive edits in the range, too, from good faith editors. I would be leery about the large amount of collateral damage done by a hard block of the /16. Binksternet (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, my apologies for the delayed response and thank you for reaching out. Unfortunately there is no perfect solution for disruption of this sort and scale. I have adjusted the block parameters from a hard block on specific pages to a site-wide soft block with account creation restricted. If any other administrator sees a better fit for limiting disruption from this range, they are of course welcome to make changes as needed at any time. Let's continue to monitor for impact of these changes, and thank you again for chiming in. Regards, 22:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you very much Yamaguchi先生 and Drmies. I have the easy task--noting and reporting disruption. You have to figure out how best to use sanctions with the least possible peripheral damage. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaguchi先生 and Drmies, we've got another one [16]. Perhaps a lock on that talk page is in order. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know--this is all so stupid that I'm wondering if I landed in the upside-down. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another IP. Can a passing admin help clean up and rev/delete all the copyvio at Tracey Rose? Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:D600 (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Returning from a week away. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, please have a look at the puff job bio writing by Imc5howl (talk · contribs). I started working on Joseph W. Underwood, which is truly dreadful. Warren G. Phillips is in fairly bad shape, as well. Best, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Add Glenn D. Lid. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies, Melcous and Kinu. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Ohnoitsjamie, return of the WP:LTA IP range at covid related articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, gotta run and teach sonnets! Drmies (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2603:7000:B500:70D:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for 1 month. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terrific. Thank you both. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright--and we read Elizabeth, Wyatt, and Howard! Drmies (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Smith, Drmies, based on edit history, is there any way Nycbrooklynjesus2003 (talk · contribs) is not a sock? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Same for 2A02:8440:6417:65C6:D01E:CFF3:6316:19E6 (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• SPI archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlanCity20/Archive. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I blocked that one, and threw another one in for free. RoySmith, it's a big range that I just checked, the same range you checked on 2 October, and I am in favor of blocking it if only because there is a TON of IP editing from the same person. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take a look, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Thank you. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can give 3rr and OR warnings to the new user, but would like some more eyes on this first. Drmies, your thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think my edits explain my thoughts, but I have one for you: do they have a point? As a good administrator, I have not looked into that. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think so, given how many sources refer to that example. Looks like they're on a mini-crusade. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they've got some traction here [17], so who knows? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eng derson7es (talk · contribs). What thinketh thou, Drmies? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Foreign language copyright violation drafts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Thanks. Hey, I baked banana bread, for the first time. Do I deserve citizenship now? And you're wearing your Alabama shirt, right? Cause it's Texas A&M and I am not convinced it'll be easy. I'm counting on administrative support from Tide rolls. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies, I doubt banana bread confers citizenship--that bridge was crossed the day you became a college football fan, especially in Alabama. A convincing case can be made that you're now more American than I am. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, your warnings didn't slow 2409:4063:4B92:B744:0:0:BB4A:A30F (talk · contribs) down much. Time for a time out. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While we're at it, please have a look at Kim Waltrip. It's so bad I've posted to ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I revert, it likely won't go well. Drmies, ToBeFree, your thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That was crazy. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needs some sort of restraint, if only page protection, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha, I was dealing with some weirdness. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just another day at work. Thanks, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, ToBeFree. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, please block them, and their socks. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless efforts against vandal contributors, and those abusing multiple accounts! BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 05:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, BlueNoise. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:C8E6:ADB8:BC1A:535B (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, is there any way HerbRudnick (talk · contribs) is not HeddaLettis (talk · contribs)? Hope all's well, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, I don't think so; their fingerprints are pretty clear. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because what's a new day without another glitch at home? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, looks like a public relations production. Have a look if you have the time and inclination. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OMG that's too depressing for today. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite alright, Drmies. I throw these hot potatoes with no expectation that they be caught immediately, if ever. But sometimes they're too good not to share. I tend to be more careful in trimming than you or Melcous. As well, I could go the standard route and take it to the BLP or COI noticeboards. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks friends, I was up for the challenge today and quite enjoyed taking a bit of a scalpel to that - hopefully I have walked the line between keeping it interesting enough and removing bloat. Hope you are both well. Melcous (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Melcous. Also for keeping on eye on Rosenfeld, which looks to have sock or meatpuppet issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, if there's a separate listing of his books, do they also need to be mentioned under 'career?' 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, 65.182.144.2 (talk · contribs) quacks like a long time alternate of HerbRudnick (talk · contribs), HeddaLettis (talk · contribs), etc. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• And for what it's worth, part of the perennial WP:COI promotion at Richard Grayson (writer). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Well spotted. I'm afraid there's little I can do about that collection of crap that's the Grayson article. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, while I'm at it, Drmies, is it possible DrkWebber (talk · contribs) is not the IP you blocked at Premiere? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My error, Drmies--it was ToBeFree who blocked. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries. The answer is actually no--but they created the account after their IP was blocked for three years, so it's block evasion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Three months, methinks. Thanks and cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morning, Drmies. I present 173.22.225.250 (talk · contribs), who wrote this over a year ago [18], and is another likely sock of HerbRudnick (talk · contribs), HeddaLettis (talk · contribs) and 65.182.144.2 (talk · contribs). Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't that special. I present you this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XavierDodo--and thanks for your help with that. Have a great day! Drmies (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies. And *%@?!&# re: recent events. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw--thanks. So childish. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was more concerned for your privacy than writing down the information. I could have sent you a lobster roll on dry ice, which would probably be pretty lousy this time of year. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. A nightmare of WP:ELs and a memorial listing of non notables, mostly added by a WP:COI. If I removed them, I'd probably be warned for vandalism, if not excessive callousness. I've pinged Drmies too much--anyone else want to have a look? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm dubious on the merits of a comprehensive misconduct section, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey – I had a look back through the history. You aren't wrong about the whitewashing and a whole load of other problematic editing. I'd just seen a few isolated issues but it's only now I look more carefully and suddenly it all looks a bit CIR, or something. Sheesh. DBaK (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, they've made a mess in a lot of places, with supreme assurance that they're an expert. I'm about to do some reverting at the Virginia Highlander page, which is just bizarre. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I just say aaaaaaaaaaargh at this point? I have to confess that I sometimes find editors of this kind more difficult than actual vandals ... DBaK (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely. This is ripe for ANI, except it is torturous rather than an easy fix with a quick block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • But at this point, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, enough editors have dealt with them that a report would probably have much support. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      I do hope so. I must admit that I am never keen to go within several kilometres of ANI but maybe someone with a stronger stomach will do so. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • Sorry to ping you both, but Drmies, Melcous, when you're ready to roll up your sleeves....or I can just go to ANI. At this point I can't tell how much collateral damage this account has done while adding content to articles like Glenn Miller, but they've required a small unit of editors to ride herd. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        Oh wow, that's messy. I've done some initial tidying up on Miller, but as you say, difficult to know how much damage has been done and how to address it. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melcous, thanks so much. Yep. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, a heads up. I'm pinging you because my reversion at Virginia Highlander unknowingly matched yours at Chincoteague Pony. I've also reverted off-topic rambles at several other articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'd completely misread this (i.e., totally failed to look at the user's contribs), thought this was a newbie on a mission. If the other edits are as poor as those to the horse pages, there may be a good deal of cleaning-up to be done. I'm not about to plough through 247 edits to John Hoogenakker, but the first one does not bode well; it looks as if AngusWOOF has had his hands full there. I think this is ripe for ANI. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But figured I'd wait until they edited [19]. Thanks, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but I'm not at the mercy of some damn administrator! Drmies (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think, Drmies--AfD? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I don't know. I wonder how Matthew H. Steele, MD, is related to that football player. Yeah, that coverage is extraordinary thin, and I'd vote "delete". Drmies (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how easy it is for me to open that process. If you or anyone else is up for it, I'll add my nickel. Until then, happy holidays, and watch out for the weather. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the obvious, there's at least a little copyright violation in the recent edits. Any assistance re: the article and new WP:SPA will be appreciated--Drmies, ToBeFree, Deepfriedokra? Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks WP:G11 to me, but is a long-standing article. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's been promotional since its creation, it may still qualify for G11, Deepfriedokra. And it looks like its very first version was a copyright violation, complete with quotation marks. Never really improved since. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant assistance and save, DanCherek. Thank you and cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, thanks for flagging it! DanCherek (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, hope you're well. I refer you to [20], where we have a COI who's used several accounts and has added promotional and likely copyright violation content to the biography. I imagine some rev/deletion is in order. Whether user sanctions are appropriate I leave to administrative discretion.

It's 63 here today. Crazy. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What on earth were those editors thinking. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• User:ButterCashier, User:JO4n, successive versions of that article, until this edit, contained serious copyright violations--I'm sure you saw that that text was copied from the publisher's website. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Deepfriedokra, am I wrong to see this as part of a persistent attempt by Mr. Isaacs to circumvent lengthy discussions at COI, at his talk page, and at the article talk page [21]? If so, please tell me. In general, I think the user is ripe for an ANI report now--there is no edit they aren't willing to fight over at any article. Thanks, and happy holiday. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea actually. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context: [22]. And their user talk page, the lengthy discussions there since deleted [23]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My colleague is an actual, real-live PhD, so is undoubtedly of greater perspicacity than I. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is Walton22. Again. Of course. @Drmies: Is it just me, or is Walton22 in need of an enforced Wikication? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I pruned a few of them because they were not independently notable, and lacked secondary sourcing. I left a note. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Originally I requested a topic ban. But they're so relentless in debating every edit that's reverted at any page.... 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, do I know them? There was a note on their talk page about the edit preceding this revert, but I don't think that was a really problematic edit at all. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordonvale, Queensland--ugh. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's got nothing on New Harbor, Maine before that was cleaned up. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I can top that, easily. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 re your "there is no edit they aren't willing to fight over at any article." I'd like to suggest that's not fair. See the thread I instigated at Talk:Gustav Mahler "Inviting other editors to discuss" which wasn't a "fight", but a great discussion, in which a long-standing WP editor remarked positively on my approach, and expressed the wish on my own Talk page that I continue to contribute to WP. I am still making some arguable mistakes in protocol along the way, but am making an effort, and I feel there is exaggeration here. Drmies Deepfriedokra Walton22 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but we're not going to serve and volley here--at every page where you've engaged, it's a five set match with multiple tiebreakers. And to what end? Primarily, WP:COI edits. After receiving counsel from multiple editors to leave your biography alone, and at best to use the talk page, you ignore the advice and shop for assistance, finding ways to make an end run by enlisting others to do the editing in your stead. There was also the recent unsourced inclusion of a non notable family member at Gordonvale, Queensland. I'm making an effort not to revert every poorly sourced edit you've made here, but nearly everything, whether COI or not, has necessitated reversion or clean up by others. That's disruption. If you have anything else to say, we can bring it to ANI, not here. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Deepfriedokra, circling back to this for the umpteenth time. User hasn't learned to add objective prose [24] or eschew copyright violations [25] and is now adding himself to multiple articles. It's all sourced, and a persistent COI issue. Shall I open another thread at COI? Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better than pinging us. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted many of their edits and pruned a bunch of articles, so I don't feel comfortable acting in an administrative manner. I think an ANI thread is justified, and I wonder--but you're possibly a better judge of this--if a partial block from a selection of articles is the way to go. PS here is four minutes and 34 seconds of Jarrett-bliss. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drmies. I'd initially requested a subject-specific block at the COI report, to no avail. And if he wants to add his name to multiple articles, he will continue to get around that. From the start, the disruption has compromised, if not outweighed, the value of contributions. Agreed about ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and take it there, if you have the gumption, and ping me: I will support. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, when I'm up to the twenty or thirty minutes of collecting links. Or an hour. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is locked right now, Drmies, so it'll have to wait a few days. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm maybe it's that Vote (X) asshole again. Sorry. Ha, you could always log in, if you still remember your password. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I think this should be reverted to its pre-March 14th version. Your thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Heading out now, but if I see the content restored later, I'll revert and perhaps report. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, continuation from last year--looks like block evasion, with IPs. Watching basketball, I presume. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have never seen a static IPv6 address before, you're a lucky one here. My IP used to be static for years too, unfortunately switched over to dynamic CGNAT a year ago. No more simple and easy game server hosting for me :( AP 499D25 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes. My home IP is constant, until it rains or a squirrel sneezes. Then I return as some other 2601. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like this. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:11FB:1650:1038:8EBD (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I see. AP 499D25 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, you know. Could use a lot of trimming, and may need to be protected against long term COI involvement. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, the usual. I tagged this mess, but really think the recent edits just need to be reverted. Thoughts? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts are overwhelmed by regret over the new and boneheaded way I'm making this sandwich. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to elaborate. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No--just saying it could have been worse. Same with the article. You were right, and I threw in some pruning for free. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the IP added (from Toronto, of course) was so bad I can barely distill anything out of it. I'll add a bibliography, and from there, via JSTOR/other journals, one could find some reviews to add. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I don't use the term 'mess' lightly. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may I ask why "we don't do family trees" on Wikipedia? I've been contributing to a few articles for a while now, adding information to the "Marriages and Issue" section (which is very common on lots of personal articles). You've deleted the information I added to Claro M. Recto article and I wanted to know why, since his issue is quite relevant (some of his grandsons were politicians, actors or writers). Thanks for your time. 46.222.76.209 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It was poorly sourced content which included the names of dozens of non notable individuals. The mention of relatives who are notable, with WP:RELIABLE sources, is relevant and welcome. But Wikipedia is not the place for lengthy unencyclopedic additions--what other articles have you edited in this fashion? By the way, please edit either while registered or signed out, but not both on the same article. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, the article is already so poorly sourced, it would be far more constructive to add supporting cites for what's there, than to tack on yet more poorly sourced content. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Man--I was just offered a side job: teaching in a prison. I'm kind of excited about it, though it will be a pretty serious addition to my workload. Have you ever done that? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, I never have. That could be really interesting. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory and racist comment at a Black WP:BLP: [26]. Drmies or ToBeFree, your thoughts about rev/deletion? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. IPv6/64 blocked, but unsure about revision deletion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't see the term, especially when it seems to come out of the blue, as anything other than personally malicious. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I revdeleted it--thanks. I think such accusations (the one is political if not racist, the other sexist, even if fancy) are BLP violations. ToBeFree, did you mean to block them for "unverified"? Because IMO this goes a bit farther than that. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a BLP violation, but not all BLP violations qualify for revision deletion. I had to look up the term linked above and remained unsure afterwards. Regarding the other term, the article subject is dead since 2019, so a block reason describing the overall behavior as BLP-violating would have been less accurate than "vandalism" or "persistent addition of unsourced content"; perhaps "persistently violating NPOV", but that's not part of the default dropdown. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies and ToBeFree, thank you both. Something to keep an eye on: [27]. Appears to be an autobiographical draft, and may be notable. But a resume mess. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Drmies. I'm sure that the two accounts are separate, but in contact.

Not that I usually take much interest, but on the train home tomorrow night I'll be keeping an eye out for this [28]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, this could use protection again. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And Talk:Guling, Jiangxi, too, from the same WP:LTA. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Talk pages protected for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bbb23. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that looks way too much like Lima16 to be a coincidence. Blocked, thanks for the heads up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with the latest sock. Meters (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure, Meters. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:6D87:F1C3:F0DA:5249 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And a new temporary IP. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:6D87:F1C3:F0DA:5249 (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something fun. Drmies, what the hell? Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Have a nice Sunday. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies. That option never occurred to me. I will miss the section about him becoming a grandpa. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I'm sure you will--me too. I wish the editor would upload the subject's examples of progress in Paint By Numbers. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, Tamzin, you were blocking admins for Wildhorse3 (talk · contribs) and Sitush7 (talk · contribs). Any chance Greentree0 (talk · contribs) is related? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, for this gem [29] you've already narrowly blocked. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Less narrow now. Epicgenius, I just saw your note: two birds with one stone, I suppose. Thanks to you both. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Drmies. If you're so inclined, I'm dealing with another disruptive range that's too narrowly blocked now. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Widr took care of that? Widr probably placed ten times as many blocks as I have, haha. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amen. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you Widr. This IP is actually one of many from LTA Ethiopique to the Clerks III article who have been IP hopping. They were given a 2 week block earlier [30] after my SPI report [31] and their response was to use the IP you blocked to keep it going. So thanks. NJZombie (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Melcous, I'm pinging you not so much to join the discussion [32], as to offer an opportunity to clean up the COI messes if you have time and opportunity. As always, no expectation, and I may take a shot at one or more of the articles myself.

• I just saw your tribute to DGG; I didn't know. He was a good one, whom I had occasion to interact with more than a few times over the years. My condolences. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I was very serious: DGG truly was a mentor. I could go through the archives but I won't, and it's been a while, but I am pretty sure that I learned much from DGG in AfD discussions, which I used to participate in a lot. And I think I was probably a hotheaded little shit in many of them, and I have no doubt that the record will show DGG gently correcting and guiding me. So for me this is really a loss, yes, and thank you for your kind words. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My memory is that I sometimes found his conclusions too restrained, which may suggest some hotheadness here, as well. But his intelligence and integrity were never in doubt. Thank you for sharing that, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much, Melcous. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the Claude Gauvreau page. I have added citations as you suggested. Would you like to remove the

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

tag? Thanks again! Chadgadya (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melcous, Drmies, the usual. A long term COI project that could use more trimming. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B51F:3AC4:56DD:685A (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another IP. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie, Deepfriedokra, Bbb23, I came across these over the weekend: Karlsruhe Zoo, Early modern philosophy, Culture of Detroit, being edited by newly registered accounts that are quickly discarded. Mostly the edits are innocuous, primarily wikilinking--often overdone, with some attempts at copyediting. There are many more articles and users involved. Most are here for a day, then disappear. Does this appear to be merely a concerted school based effort to learn how to edit, or is something else going on? ANI is locked just now--your input is appreciated. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:3CC9:DF67:D4F5:F1C3 (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for wasting everyone's time. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits such as Special:Diff/1152648690 and Special:Diff/1152593197 are likely caused by the article's maintenance template and mw:Help:Growth/Tools/Newcomer_Tasks#addlink. The Wikipedia app on mobile devices invites users to perform these tasks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your numerous efforts against vandalism. Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Novo Tape, thank you. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep adding maintenance templates; there's always a new WP:COI account at work. Melcous, should you have time and inclination. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much, Melcous. Best regards, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, thanks for the heads up ... lovely to work with you again :) Melcous (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My pleasure, Melcous. Another, should you feel so disposed: Paul Adams (musician). I may attempt some clean up in the next few days. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that a nickname would be defeating the point of editing anonymously, but do you have a shorter name I could refer to you by? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oshwah calls me 'Bob,' since the name tends to appear in many of my IPs. But I'll answer to 'Smartass.' 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, smartass. :P LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Bob! Hope you're doing well! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine, Oshwah. Hope you're well, too. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shrugs. We had storms this evening. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:9409:D210:7DC4:1CB (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, so did we. Hope you're having a good evening, Bob. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, aside from this [33] as of the fifth inning. So I'm about to call it an evening. Take care, be well, and assorted redundancies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:9409:D210:7DC4:1CB (t