User talk:Cahk/Archive 18

UAA

Thanks for the report at WP:UAA. How do you know that Baxarbot is not being lined up for a bot flag on some other wiki? Please don't report users at WP:UAA if they haven't edited on this wiki. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Global edits showed edits that were not made by bots before joining the EN Wiki.--Cahk (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Blocks are meant to be WP:PREVENTATIVE not punitive. If sulutil:Baxarbot isn't editing enwiki, what is being prevented? Nothing. @Alexf
2. If they are breaching the policy on arwiki & sowiki, why haven't you reported the user on those wikis (ar, so) where proper preventative action can be taken?

Enwiki is not the global police. How would you feel if you were blocked on arwiki, despite never editing there, and thus rendered ineligible for WP:TWL & other toys? Cabayi (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cabayi: "Bot" usernames are not permitted on EN does not mean it's the same as AR or SO. My point was the edits were clearly not made a "bot" on those wiki and therefore, it would be a username violation here when the sub-global account is opened here. A report is made to UAA, and it's up to admins to block, warn or ignore. If you feel the block is not fair, you can unblock the account yourself. --Cahk (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I can indeed, though I'd prefer that Alexf reverted himself. Also, beyond the retail unblock of this user, given the number of reports you make to UAA, I see more benefit all round in fixing the wholesale issue and getting you to see that Baxarbot made no edits to this wiki, did not trouble the filter logs of this wiki, and has no reason to be blocked on this wiki. That's why UAA has the templated response {{UAA|w}} → Wait until the user edits. Cabayi (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cabayi: User unblocked per this discussion. For the record, I disagree. The username is a clear violation of the username rules. Having edited or not applies to vandalism, but not to clear username violations in my view, but so be it. Done. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I walk you both​ through a parallel hypothetical. The Spanish wiki has a has a policy against nonsensical usernames. Let us suppose an eager Spanish admin decides that Cahk is meaningless nonsense in Spanish. CentralAuth shows Cahk has an account on eswiki which has never been used (just like Baxarbot on enwiki). An account which Cahk has done nothing to make "real". Using the logic you're applying a Spanish admin would be justified in blocking Cahk. That would likely hinder any potential RFA, any request to use the Wikipedia Library, any candidacy for stewardship, or any request for global permissions. And the kicker, Cahk would have to make an appeal in Spanish, a language he does not apparently speak.

So I ask, what is the purpose of a block on a project that the user has never edited? Cabayi (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please respond to my message

Hi Cahk! I hope this find you well. This is my first time using wiki to chat in the "talk" section about edits. I'm the user in the chat (User talk:2601:600:8281:97C0:9426:C1EF:8EFC:99B5). I don't think you've seen my responses, would you please take a look at get back to me. I put many hours into revising the company page with over 40 citations, trustworthy news sources, and peer reviewed papers. The current page is now VERY outdated and needs to accept the updates. If I missed any area/typed something in a personal tone I didn't mean to and am more than happy to have you point those out to me to revise. Thanks! 2601:600:8281:97C0:C92C:9F4C:CD89:3ABC (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

An administrator has beat me to it in responding. I've nothing more to add beyond what was stated.--Cahk (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Would you please provide specifics of what your concern is? 2601:600:8281:97C0:48E5:D056:E6F2:86E5 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

They were clearly written in non-neutral language - " Your products are only as good as the science behind them (no matter what the marketing or price tries to make you believe)", citing a dozen or more press release is borderline advertorial if not outright advertisement, deleted all references to MLM despite Google searches showing terms MONAT and MLM frequently. As a self-proclaimed "former government research scientist", I am amazed you would even consider citing PR press release as a source despite the fact they are clearly one sided in nature and meant to promote the subject. I don't really know any Wiki editor would let you get away with the obvious promotional edits.--Cahk (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, if you read my final version you would have noticed that I edited all that info out. I completely agree that sentences like that should not be included!

Sorry you're so upset about this, it's really very simple. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to be a starting point for research, and updating an outdated page for transparency is vital. 2601:600:8281:97C0:D0CF:27BE:BC6B:B41 (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not upset, and "if you read my final version you would have noticed that I edited all that info out" is not accurate. The citations remained littered with PRWire links. Further "truthaboutmonat" is a website that does not indicate ownership nor has any information on who is operating the website. Citing a website like that is not a reliable source either. --Cahk (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Re:Dapo Abiodun

Hi Cahk! Sorry I didn’t explain why before I edited the out the damaging article about Dapo Abiodun. The story is not true and people are using the story on the notorious website to blackmail the Governor of Ogun State. kindly, help remove again. Now, I have a clear understanding how it should be done in the future. Regards The Bishop Akogun (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Bishop Akogun: The paragraph in question has 2 citations, with one quoting apparently the subject's lawyer contesting disqualification. Just because something is damaging doesn't mean it's false. If you have other citations to the contrary, you are welcome to cite them in the article. However, blanket removal would not be permissible. --Cahk (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Cahk! I've owed you this for a long time, and I'm sorry that I haven't given this token of recognition to you sooner. You are amazing at letting me know when someone goes popping off on their user talk page abusively after being blocked. I absolutely LOVE that you come to me and let me know that a talk page revocation is needed after the block I made is applied. No one else has come close to the number of times that you have when it comes this, and I can't think one a single time that I've disagreed with you. Please, by all means, keep it up. You make a difference here, and you matter. I mean that. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:British Columbia Sheriff Service (badge).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:British Columbia Sheriff Service (badge).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Issue regarding link removal

Dear Cahk I had just added a blog to the article informing about viktor axelsen's racket in his biography. I think there should be no problem regarding the link. Aakarsh blogger (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Crime Stoppers International

HI, LookingAroundALso is not a sock account. I am actually from CSI an was fixing malicious content on the CSI wiki page. Thanks LookinAround was malicious and reported incorrect info on the CSI wiki. LookingAroundAlso (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)