Welcome to my talk page. You can contact me here.

Replies: Sometimes, I will reply on your talk page; if I do this, I will link the diff to my reply here. However, usually, in order to keep the discussion in one place, I will reply here, and I'll use either {{ping}} or {{talkback}} or both to inform you of the reply.

Looking for your message? Most talk pages on Wikipedia are organized in chronological order, meaning newer messages will appear at the bottom of the page. I archive my talk page seasonally. When messages are archived, you can find them in the archive box to the right. If you want to restart the discussion, don't do so on the archive page; instead, start a new thread here.

Note: While I try not to make mistakes too often, I'm far from being an infallible editor. If you think I've made a mistake, or otherwise feel that I could have done something better, I would warmly welcome your feedback here. (On Wikipedia, it is customary to respond to foolish behavior by whacking with a wet trout. Face-smile.svg)

Wikimedia Diversity flower 03.png

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Click here to start a new message

Pending changes reviewerEdit

Vandalism I apolagaized for use this word and I did not mean that
Asking random other editors to intervene Yes I do that , I did not want editor wars I hated that
Dispute I do not have any Dispute with any editors in Wikipedia but this user remove all my edits , this user refuse put Kurdish and Arabic names in articles and I required for him discuss with me , he was did not answer me and removed all my edits. This user was block for one week before few weeks ago
I hope you give me this permission , I wrote in Wikipedia 3 years and I do not have any problem with any one I promise you
Help me
Thank you , Hamaredha (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Hamaredha. For the reasons I've already expressed at WP:PERM/PCR, I will not be granting you this permission at this time. You are welcome to request the permission again at the same place after some time has passed. Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

  Administrator changes

  Jake Wartenberg
  EmperorViridian Bovary
  AshleyyoursmileViridian Bovary

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-36Edit

15:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


Hello Mz7, hope you are doing good. Last day I've applied for global IP block exempt ([4]) and it is granted by Ruslik0 ([5]). But it is not working on Wikipedia. As I mentioned there, My native is Thrissur in Kerala and I moved to Alappuzha along with my family. I'll be here for 3 years from today. Unfortunately I can't login to Wikipedia from some places here. I think many IP addresses are blocked here due to which I cannot work in Wikimedia projects. Humbly requesting you to add me to the IP block exemption. Thank you, -- Sreeram Dilak (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sreeram Dilak. Unfortunately, I was not able to identify the IP address block that is affecting your account. Note that blocks only prevent you from editing Wikipedia; you can still log into your account even if the IP address is blocked, and in most cases, you should still be able to edit after logging in, even from a blocked IP address. The next time that you find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia because of a block affecting your IP address, could you please file a request for the IP block exemption on WP:UTRS by filling out this form? Importantly, please submit this form from the IP address that is blocked. This is so that we can verify the problem. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a winkEdit

  -Rng0286 (talk) conts (extended confirmed, rollbacker, and pending changes;) Excellent! (rights) D'oh! 06:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shelter animation screenshot.jpgEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Shelter animation screenshot.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) 04:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-37Edit

15:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of usersEdit

Hello Mz7,a few days ago I watched indian horror show X Zone in which indian actor Manoj Joshi worked,so I edited Manoj Joshi wikipedia page with YouTube video reference in which actor Manoj Joshi worked,but one user Yappy2bhere deleting that information along with that YouTube video reference,so please look at that matter if that reference is not appropriate then I will not add that reference again but if YouTube video can be added as a reference and please stop that user Yappy2bhere removing information again and again,thanks Zoro0909 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Zoro0909. I'm not familiar with this subject matter, so I can't help with the specifics of the dispute. However, in general, YouTube is not considered a reliable enough source for Wikipedia purposes. This is primarily because it is considered a "user-generated source"—anyone can upload videos and claim to be an expert. I recommend providing a better source that follows Wikipedia's reliable source guideline. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

So then why most of wikipedia contents added without references?then we have to remove that editings whenever we find any editing without references? Zoro0909 (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021Edit

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Mz7,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Profuse sockmaster in need of discouragementEdit

Hello Mz7! This SPI (cf. also this one) could really do with some CU attention. This master seems to have created multiple accounts at once in the last few weeks, and may have revived an older one at the same time. They edit profusely and disruptively, and always seem to have some sleeper at the ready to take over. TNT normally deals with this one, but she seems to be on a break. Feel free to point me to another CU. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 12:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma, thanks for your message. I've put the SPI "on my radar", so to speak. Unfortunately, the case seems a little complicated, involving potentially a whole different sockmaster whose case we may have to merge (SheryOfficial) I don't have as much free time these days as I've had in the past to edit Wikipedia, but I will see if I can take a deeper dive into the case as soon as I can. (Fortunately, it seems we may be getting some fresh new CUs soon.) Mz7 (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mz7! Not sure if the fact that they have now actually confessed to be SheryOfficial (as well as a bunch of other accounts) makes things easier, or rather more difficult... Great news about the new CUs though!   ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 06:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-38Edit

18:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021Edit

Tech News: 2021-39Edit

22:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.


  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-40Edit

16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
For your outstanding work as the primary CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanketio31! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
+1. Spicy (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review updateEdit

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-41Edit

15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverts of Donald B. Gillies articleEdit

It is so frustrating that the article about my father which has been hosted more or less intact for 15Y on Wikipedia is being systematically destroyed by so-called editors following new dogma about wikipedia (that wikipedia is a digest of magazine articles and journal papers only, that other forms of evidence including historical correspondence which I have painfully made efforts to collect, is now rejected by wikipedia due to new dogma.) Anyway, the article has been shredded to 30% of its original length by junior folks, and I will soon disengage from this failing platform. This article was written as a joint effort between the my mother, the wife of Donald B. Gillies, and myself, son of Donald B. Gillies. But the good folks at Wikipedia choose to apply dogma to erase history. So be it. Enough. SystemBuilder (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@SystemBuilder: I'm sorry that you feel frustrated by your experience here. There are a couple different issues involved here. Firstly, has the historical correspondence you are referring to ever been published in a reliable source outside of Wikipedia? Perhaps, for example, on a biographical page on a university website? The principle that I think the editors referred you to is "no original research". This isn't a "new dogma"; it has been a fundamental principle of Wikipedia since its founding. Basically, we can only publish information that has already been published elsewhere—this is because we are an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. For this reason, if you have new information about your father that no one else has ever published before, I'm afraid Wikipedia is not in the best position to be the first to publish that new information.
The other issue I want to discuss is your closeness to the article subject. In general, Wikipedia strongly discourages editors from editing any article subject that they have an external relationship with. This is because you have a conflict of interest with respect to those subjects, which is not a judgment of your character, but rather a description of a situation. For more information on editing with a conflict of interest, please read our guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I hope this information is helpful. Mz7 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Alaskan wildlife fanEdit

Since you were the closer here, I wanted to tell you that Alaskan wildlife fan has resurfaced at ANI with a comment that was reverted on ARBPIA 30/500 grounds. This after being inactive since the SPI discussion you closed in March, and within a few hours of me opening an ANI discussion about two users' tendentious editing at Talk:StandWithUs. Strange behavior for sure – I have no knowledge of the SPI area but figured I'd drop you a note just in case you feel any action is warranted. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Dopenguins, a strange user, and an IPEdit

I'm coming to you because you're the most recent checkuser for Dopenguins at the SPI. Vuehalloo created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZH8000 accusing ZH8000 of editing logged out at Basel having to do with an MOS issue that Vuehalloo misinterpreted. Vuehalloo's stated purpose for creating an account was to file the SPI. I deleted the SPI as meritless (implicitly a personal attack against ZH8000). In looking through the Dopenguins archive, I noticed that Dopenguins socks have attacked ZH8000, although not, as far as I know, gone as far as filing an SPI against them. For those reasons, I blocked Vuehalloo as a suspected sock of Dopenguins.

Vuehallo has had an unblock request outstanding for about a week. Their first was declined by Yamla, but I have no way of knowing if Yamla ran a check. Then along comes the IP 81. who asked Vuehallo about 185., an IP whose edit to Basel was the same as Vuehalloo's. I reverted IP 81. as having no business in any of this, but Vuehalloo reinstated the IP's edit, and I left it alone. Today, the IP posted an extensive analysis of Dopenguins that is impressive in its depth.

I'm having trouble with all of this. Although I know from my own experience that checks of possible Dopenguins socks can be problematic, especially if they've made very few edits, because of Dopenguins' use of proxies. Still, as IP 81. says, Dopenguins doesn't edit from legitimate IPs in England (IP 81. himself is editing from an English ISP). If I've incorrectly blocked Vuehalloo, the block should be lifted, but I'm also suspicious of IP 81.'s behavior. Obviously, I'm not expecting you to disclose anything that connects IPs to named accounts, but whatever you believe you can do would be helpful. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I ran a check on Vuehalloo when investigating the unblock request. If I remember correctly, it was consistent but not conclusive, as is common with Dopenguins socks. Mz7 may have better luck or see something I didn't. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Yamla. Although you can't confirm this, it then sounds like Vuehallo's assertion that he used the 185. IP must be false. As far as I can tell with the limited tools at my disposal, that IP is not a proxy and, although it's been a long time and I don't have access to recent CU results, I don't recall Dopenguins ever using a legitimate English IP. BTW, curiosity trivia, how do you and Mz7 pronounce Dopenguins in your head? I "say" Doe-penguins, but I have no idea if that's "correct". Just thought I'd ask while I was here as I've been typing the name now repeatedly.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I pronounce it "dope penguins". I'm aware that can't possibly be correct but it amuses me. :) --Yamla (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Yamla, I do the same! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Hmm, the Vuehalloo account doesn't appear to be using proxies, and it doesn't look like they're on a range frequented by Dopenguins. From a purely technical standpoint, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to conclude definitively that Vuehalloo is Dopenguins.
I do, however, share your suspicion about the peculiarity of certain aspects of this situation. It is unusual for a random IP ( to take notice of an obscure sockpuppetry block, and also interestingly, the IP that Vuehalloo accused ZH8000 of using, (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), is in a range that is partially blocked because it is used by Dopenguins. There is a very small chance that Vuehalloo is using a novel kind of proxy that we've really only started seeing this year (I'm hesitant to share more per WP:BEANS), but to use such a proxy requires a nontrivial amount of money and interest, and I don't think we've ever seen Dopenguins use this kind of proxy in the past.
Overall, I feel like the next step here is a bit of a reluctant unblock of Vuehalloo because of the uncertainty of the evidence. What do you think? Mz7 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I had in fact noticed the 194. pblock and the reason for it. Everything about this event (filing of the SPI report) was odd. I'm afraid I'm still suspicious of everyone involved, but I agree with you that I must unblock the user. Of course, you haven't weighed in on the most important question: how do you pronounce Dopenguins? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


Hello Mz7. Thank you for volunteering for the Electoral Commission for the 2021 ArbCom Election. Following the closure of the ELECTCOM RfC, you have been selected as a commissioner. Congratulations! Some important pages to watch about the election are: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021, and others in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2021. Your duties may require some private communications with the other commissioners, traditionally wikimail and/or email has been used for this, along with IRC - but this is up to you to decide. Again, thank you for volunteering for this important position. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 23:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-42Edit

20:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Bot not updating SPI case listEdit

Hi Mz7. I'm looking at the history of User:Mz7/SPI case list, and the bot appears to have stopped updating the list around 5.5 hours ago. There have been various updates at SPI since then, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of the bot's malfunctioning. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Ah shoot, that's embarrassing. Looking into it now. Thank you for letting me know. Mz7 (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Not a problem. Bots break sometimes. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Should be   Fixed now. Mz7 (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail!Edit

Hello, Mz7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WhoAteMyButter (📨talk📝contribs) 05:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog driveEdit

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-43Edit

20:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begunEdit

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021Edit

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

  Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-44Edit

20:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Blast from the pastEdit

Once upon a time, you once asked if my vote-history tool caught duplicate votes. It did at the time... sorta - all it did was use the vote appearing the furthest down the page, throwing the others away. But that was then, and this is now; I've fixed it to actually show a list of the duplicates. A tiny thing, but it merited a talk page post because it happened to be my final notification! I started at 74 notifications a while ago and went through them all, and now that I'm done with yours, my inbox is empty and I can finally... move on to my overgrown talk page (gulp). But anyway, thanks for the feature request and enjoy the new duplicate detection. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Ha! That is amazing. I'm not sure how other people can handle 74 pending notifications—I'm the kind of guy that gets anxious with just one, although I suppose marking them as read as soon as they come in has indeed led to incidents where I've forgotten to follow-up on them... Mz7 (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Socks of Nair sahebEdit

Socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nair Saheb are again vandalising Sambandam after protection expired. Please lock it.[26][27] (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-47Edit

20:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021Edit

One or Two Questions?Edit

Is the question that I asked of the ArbCom candidates considered one question, or two questions? So, am I allowed to ask another non-follow-up question? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-48Edit

21:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)