User talk:Tamzin/Archive/4

Français

"Le point de la nuit": essentiellement, c'est une combinaison de "faire le point" et, bien sûr, "nuit". Hope that helps. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Ah okay. Thanks! So would a good translation there be "Taking stock of the night"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A translation: yes? But I guess a more idiomatic expression would be something like "Nightly [news] report" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Ah okay, thanks.  Fixed in the article. Something about the mix of the idiomatic "point" and the prepositions there was really tripping me up. I really need to brush up on my French, but haven't had occasion to spend much time in France the past few years, and that's the only way I've ever really managed to stay fluent. Summertime soon, though, and we get plenty of Québecois tourists here, so maybe I'll find someone to chat with. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

My last change regarding the garden of eden page

My change was to correct the name of the area is neutral and if you look from a historical point of view and not bring politics into this subject you will see, I'm asking you to be neutral and read about the names of this place it was never been called the Persian Gulf and it is wrong to claim that name without evidence of nations calling it that from the now time and historically even in western media and literature it is called Arabian Gulf please fix this error 151.254.242.101 (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Our article calls it the Persian Gulf. See also Persian Gulf naming dispute. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

RickRoll Land draft

Hey! So I noticed that there have been 2 (That I noticed) reports relating to something involving the RickRoll Land draft at EFFP. I don't have any problems with the reports specifically, but I do have a problem with the draft. Based on what I see on the draft, it seems like a clear violation of WP:NOT based on WP:MADEUP. However I'm not sure if it would actually qualify as a WP:NOT violation since technically, a YouTuber (Who doesn't even have their own article yet) created it and not someone on Wikipedia. I'm asking you since I think you dealt with both reports and I'd like your opinion on what should be done with the draft. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Well, it's a draft. The only speedy deletion criteria they're covered by are the G-series ones, none of which apply here. Particularly problematic drafts can be taken to MfD, but drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. There's lots of stuff incubating in draftspace that is not notable and never will be. Eventually people get bored enough that six months go without an edit, and then the draft is deleted. Assuming that it doesn't become notable... With online trends, you can never really tell. Every meme article was MADEUP at first. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright sounds good. I would've immediately assumed it was just a joke article, however it was (apparently) created by a YouTuber even though it has no sources whatsoever which means that it wouldn't qualify for G3 (Unless for whatever reason that info was completely fabricated). Thanks for giving me your opinion on it. I'll probably keep an eye on it for a while to see if it ever becomes problematic enough to go to MfD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Rashism

What was the reason for the move? It's a neologism that appeared back in 2016 and is only mentioned in Ukrainian media. Couldn't find it in the academic sources. This term cannot be used as a name for a Wikipedia article. It basically doesn't exist (there are no quality RS that mention it). Please move it back to Russian fascism.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gaura79: Thanks for reaching out. My move of the page was procedural in nature, based on an informal consensus (permalink) on the talk page. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter myself. As I noted when moving the page, if there is any further disagreement as to the page's title, the next discussion should be a formal RM [requested move]. For instructions on starting that process, please see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please let me know if you have any further questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You are the one, perhaps!

Hi, Tamzin, I hope you are well. I was just noticing that I have created over 110 articles on this Wikipedia, and also improved about 11 articles, among which I helped to make two good articles. So what I did moments ago is that, I made Template:User improved to indicate on my userpage, the number of articles that I have improved, because one can't include those in the articles created, even if the whole of the content, is ones own work. I would like you to fix the template stuff for me, because I have no knowledge of "template-editing". I just happened to make few little templates. I don't also feel the name is a nice one. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 23:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@TheAafi: It looks good to me! The only technical issue is that you should get rid of the <includeonly>...</includeonly>, so it shows up when viewing the template page. Personally I'd change the wording of the text a bit, but that's not really a technical question. And the name seems fine to me! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Pakistanpedia and Lillyput

Do you have a question? When I filed the two recent reports, I was concluding that the sockpuppeteer was trying to create a walled garden of articles on some films and actors. I didn't think that there was current log data. That's about all. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: My question is just if you have any thoughts on the IP's allegations there. The filing doesn't present enough evidence, and the filer is unavailable to expand it, so I thought I'd reach out as a Hail Mary, in case you had anything to add based on your experience with the case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No. My own opinion is that the IP is probably a different sockpuppetmaster who is an enemy of Pakistanpedia, but I am cynical about IP editors reporting conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsuppress the revisions on User:Raymond Spencer

You are making it look like Wikipedia is hiding something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.82.114 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IP 24. All I did was remove the content on the page as a proactive measure. Some time after that, a steward suppressed the whole account, taking those edits with it. If you want to get that reversed, you would have to talk to the steward team. (To be honest, as it stands, that page should just be deleted, seeing as the only public revision is the blank one.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think deleting the page would just make it look even worse. If you can take the heat for being the last editor to the page, I'm minded to let it stand. Otherwise I could remove your username from it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind being the last one in the history, no. But to avoid confusion I've left a note in the page history directing concerned parties to the steward team. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. There's a small chance it might get restored one day, btw, but that's above even my pay grade. The peanut gallery may wish to know that having both seen the contents, I think we'd agree there wasn't anything very exciting there .. no rants or manifestos or anything, basically just a few userboxes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm L3X1. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Raymond Spencer, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

this was a mistake I apologize for the notification here. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Happens. And you're much nicer about it than the last person who unpatrolled me. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I may have copied your userpage...

Just saw your request for adminship. I would possibly accept... But I doubt that I made sufficient amount of recent edits on Wikipedia. I like your userpage style, more than 0 edits. I used more than 1 edit, but please believe me when I say I was not copying your idea. I didn't even know you until now. And about the notice on your talkpage not appearing on mobile, my talkpage on my home wiki has one I made from scratch. It appears to show on mobile. Just thought that might help. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 08:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@L10nM4st3r: I don't claim any monopoly over silly userboxen. :D As to the mobile notice thing, yeah. I'm still thinking about the best way to do that. Thanks for the suggestion. Will consider it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete draft

Why you removed "deletion tag" from my draft?

I already answered all your questions.

May I get a reason for declining my request? What is bad faith in it? I am the owner.

Draft link: [1]

Also, if you forget, I left a question for you on my talk page. Please answer it. Don't ignore it further. It is your responsibility.

Bobe8q8661 (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bobe8q8661: I was just going to post on your talk page about this. I restored your draft because, based on what you've said about yourself and TriMain182681 (talk · contribs), I believe that you requested deletion of the draft to allow TriMain to resubmit a substantially identical page without the record of a previous AfC decline and copyright violation removal. That would constitute a "bad faith" deletion request, and is thus ineligible for G7 speedy deletion. I've redirected TriMain's draft there; he's welcome to work on improving the draft you started. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk to the question you asked there. Please don't edit comments after they've been replied to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't edit "your" comment or reply. I had only edited my "own" comment. (See page history)

Now, may I ask you for help? I need to delete my draft. Please delete it for myself as I am the owner of it. That will be a great favor by you to me. Bobe8q8661 (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you edited your comment, after I had replied to it. You should not do this. As to deleting the draft, I have already replied on your talk page about this. Let's keep discussion there. Also, thank you for signing your posts, but you still need to indent them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your offer to discuss how to handle edits

Hello. I’d like to take you up on your offer to discuss how to properly handle edits with you.

I recently said in a reply to Deepfriedokra that I don’t understand how I could have handled the situation better, and I still don’t. How can I avoid edit warring with someone who keeps putting information that I know is wrong and possibly harmful back on the page, ignoring what others have told them about the need to discuss it first?

I’m doing my absolute best here. Just trying to make sure that those who rely on Wikipedia are properly informed and not misled. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@VictimOfEntropy: The best way to not edit war is... to not edit war. Sometimes you just have to accept that the article is going to be wrong for a little while while things shake out... or for a longer while because your view turns out to be the minority view. I get it. I have been on the receiving end of plenty of reverts, and it is in-​fucking-furiating when I'm right and the other person is wrong and they won't see it. But... I remind myself that there's no point in reverting if I know I'm going to get reverted in turn. In fact, that's how I define edit warring: reverting when you know you'll be reverted back. Instead what I remind myself is that if I'm as right as I think I am, other people will agree with me. I'll make my case at the appropriate venue, and people will see my logic, and the article will turn out the way I wanted. And if they don't, then oh well, there's nothing I can do. To pick one example, the article James Barry (surgeon) doesn't use the pronouns for him that, in my opinion, it obviously should as a matter of guidelines. But... I made that case, and couldn't get a consensus for it, so the (in my opinion) error persists. And... Oh well. I suck it up, and focus on other articles, because for every minute I'm arguing about one article, that's a minute I could be spending on improving another article.

I hope that makes sense. Maybe not the advice you were looking for. You've caught me right before my bedtime (as evidenced by the ellipses every other sentence and probably a few typos I've missed). If you want a version of this that's a bit more lucid, see rules 2 and 3 at User:Tamzin#Five rules I try to follow. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: No, I understand what you’re saying. It may be disappointing, but I understand that it’s good advice in general. But I feel like this particular instance is different because the wrong thing is something that someone with an urgent need to know the right information might come to Wikipedia and find instead. I said in my reply to Deepfriedokra (which might never be seen, because I still don’t know how to reply to people correctly) what I was afraid might happen if I failed to get the article right. Here’s the comment I wrote:

@Deepfriedokra: I don’t understand how I could have handled the situation any better than I did. Jamberpilot repeatedly edited the page so that it said abortion was illegal in Ohio at a point which is approximately 6 weeks LMP despite the fact that it is currently legal and available up to 22 weeks LMP in that state. That is a horrible way to misinform people, and it could have horrible consequences. Drmies undid Jamberpilot’s edits and told him to discuss it on Talk, but he just left a message on the Talk page and then immediately restored his false information on the article, and even lied in his edit claiming that it had been discussed when it hadn’t. Misinforming people has real consequences, like what we’re seeing in the real world, and Jamberpilot just repeatedly refuses to accept facts or have discussions before making these edits. People rely on this site to teach them about the world, and there’s a lot that needs to be done better. How can I let false and misleading information remain on a page just because the person who put it there is very persistent and refuses to discuss it? What if a woman in Ohio who didn’t realize she was pregnant until she was 8, 12, or 16 weeks along came to Wikipedia to learn if she could get an abortion, and cried in despair because she saw the page after Jamberpilot put that false information on it and before Drmies or I could fix it? What else could happen?

Anyway, thank you, Tamzin, and don’t let me keep you from sleep, although this whole thing has kept me from sleep, along with a crazy thunderstorm that seemed to have perfect timing. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

UTRS

Looking forward to seeing you there. Always looking for new users to click expire on the tickets from my "girlfriend." You'll no 'em when you see'em. laughs, then sobs --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

helo yes i am girlfriend of wikipedia administrator man mr. cierekim pls give me account^[Humour] casualdejekyll 14:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Alas, Fair One, thou art not she. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That "girlfriend" and "she" almost sounds like it should be plural to me, @Deepfriedokra. --ARoseWolf 19:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

giggles abashedly --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi! Last night (U.S. time, at least), you kindly interjected when an editor was engaging in some rather overly-enthusiastic bolding and responded with the relevant information on how discussions on Wikipedia are conducted. I appreciate that! Also, besides being a newish admin, I noticed you're a present trainee on the Sockpuppet busters. If you find time, please take a look into this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qaumrambista. I can't tell if its stuck in limbo or if this is the norm for investigations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Jewface

Hello, Tamzin,

I restored the edit history to this talk page since the comments involved questioning whether or not an article on this subject should exist or be deleted. When you move a draft or article on to a page that was a redirect, it will delete the previous page history. You might check on this and restore the edit history if you believe it is relevant to the current article.

I posted an additional comment in the discussion we were having on my talk page yesterday. Since the editor has been blocked, it's really a moot question now but since I didn't ping you, I thought I'd let you know. Hope you are having a good day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. :) I'd restored the old versions of the article, but wasn't sure if I should do the same for the talk too. Good to know, and I've reassembled the past threads on the page now. And yes, I saw your post on your talk. I'd already taken both editors to SPI by then, and the CU came back technically indistinguishable, so after some further review of their behavior I indeffed both (plus an apparent sleeper). Wasn't planning to jump right into SPI blocks just yet, but that one sort of landed in my lap. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 261.7 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. 154.121.66.227 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems CafeGurrier is back ... 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

See also the SPI I just filed, I think they've made a new account. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revdels. I didn't get a chance to see exactly who added what. They're might be some BLP notices worth handing out. I appreciate the quick response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"Band Vandalism"

Hello Tamzin! I noticed that a user (who is now blocked for being WP:NOTHERE) triggered a filter with the description "Band Vandalism". I'm not really curious as to the specifics of the filter itself, but as to what "Band Vandalism" even means. I originally thought it would have something to do with vandalism on pages relating to bands but that's clearly not the case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf I just wanted to note that what I have figured out from looking at the details of the edit filter is that the words "follow me" and some others are disallowed by the filter. See the following text from one of their edits.

"I am a philosopher. The UN is harassing me because of my new philosophy. They get people to follow me in the street and track me online to suppress the new philosophy." I believe that it is just checking for certain words and marking them if it finds them in an edit.

Special:AbuseLog/32578216

Special:AbuseFilter/1118 SkyTheWolf (Talk) 16:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Band Vandalism seems to just be the term they used to classify it. SkyTheWolf (Talk) 16:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok. So basically trying to get people to jump on the bandwagon. I think in this case it would technically be a false positive (since "follow me" isn't being used in the sense like "Follow me to the promised land!") but maybe it isn't. But that makes a lot of sense now. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably more like "follow me on Twitter" promotional spam, I'm guessing. Funcrunch (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This was created by Enterprisey in response to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive329 § Massive One Direction related vandalism. Not sure if it's still needed. The "follow me on Twitface" filter is 1043 (hist · log). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Never knew One Direction was popular enough that people did vandalism on Wikipedia related to it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Really doesn't seem useful anymore, yeah. I'll disable it. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Main Page/Errors

Nice to see that you've joined the crew in this area. Good to have another set of eyes and a pair of hands (and a good brain, I might say). As an aside, what you had to go through recently looked somewhat taxing; good that you kept your composure! Schwede66 21:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Well when Gerda tells me to watchlist a page, I do. :D Glad to help out. I'm sure within a year or 20 I'll no longer be terrified every time I see one of the "THIS IS ON THE MAIN PAGE RIGHT NOW" editnotices. And thank you. It was certainly a valuable learning experience. User:Tamzin/340/112/16: An RfA debrief is set to run in The Signpost this month, my effort to document what I learned; guess we'll see how a broader audience takes it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree with the "good brain" evaluation ;) - I've seen minor problems linger in that corner, - good to now about more eyes on the scene. Most often, I report my own mistakes, and then found it strange when nothing happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

14 May

I know I'm gonna be criticized for this, but someone has to say it and I got used to being criticized for saying these type of things.

I know it's none of my business but I've seen that you have names of several journalists killed while doing their duty on your user page. I'm just wondering why you didn't add the name of the Palestinian journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, who was shot dead by IDF while she was covering Israeli military raid on the Jenin refugee camp. Thanks! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: The journalists listed were all killed while covering the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a topic I've written extensively about. They are not the only journalists killed in the line of duty in recent months, but they are the ones I've chosen to write about, and thus the ones I list. I hope that answers your question. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does answer it. I think the victims of the Russian invasion of Ukraine are more important. Thank you for clarifying. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request on ISPIRT

Copyright infringement [2]. Copied from [3]. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.Pinsky: Revdelled. And older stuff from that account revdelled. And account indeffed for spamming (very intermittently, but with no constructive edits in between). Thanks for pointing me that way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

And I thank you. Regards. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

dox

Hello, I understand your redaction. I just wanted to point out this article doesn't even have his name right, which should be a basic fact for an encylopedic article. The link is a public record that anyone can access. But anyway, sorry. Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Jewish deicide

Using wikisource and sps for such a controversial claims [4]. Likely pov pushing. I cleaned it. Would you mind having a look? Dr.Pinsky (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.Pinsky: From an administrative perspective, it looks like things worked as intended here: The IP removed for an inaccurate reason (unsourced), Theagentofblight reverted due to that inaccuracy, and you re-removed based on a modified reason (poorly sourced). At a glance, the two Green papers and the Mauss paper look reliable enough for our purposes, but there's definitely too much sourced directly to Mormon scripture in there. @Theleekycauldron and Ezlev: y'all've both written on Jewish–Christian relations before. Thoughts? And @PerryPerryD: I recall a standing offer from you to discuss LDS theology. Do you have any ideas on how to make that section better? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, I agree with you that the non-primary sources appear reliable and that the content sourced directly to the Book of Mormon is undesirable – the paraphrasing is fine, but how do we know it's due for inclusion without cited mention in RSes? It does look like Mauss and the Greens (also the name of a band I'm starting /j) could form the basis for the subsection on their own, for now, and I know there's more literature on the subject that could be found and added. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for requesting my assistance, However I must inform you that as a simple Priest, I am not qualified to state my opinion on this material, Nor do i have any good contacts for verification at this time. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 02:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Buffalo shooting related request

I see you've been involved in the 2022 Buffalo shooting page. I would appreciate it if you and your talk page watchers could keep an eye on Conklin, New York and Tops Friendly Markets. Page protection won't help. Thanks. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Malcolmxl5 PC-protected the former. Guess we'll see if that holds or if semi is needed. As to the latter, I've started a discussion on the talkpage so y'all can stop edit-warring. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I've put in a similar protection request for the Tops Friendly Markets page, as its very similar material being added to both articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I hope you caught the very reasonable discussion I had with one of the editors. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for helping keep the peace cowgirl, as best one can under the circumstances. BusterD (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the context, "cowgirl" makes me think of "2nd Amendment" by the all-women mariachi band Flor de Toloache. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Polycarpa aurata: I don't think that antagonizing them like that is helpful. They're clearly participating in good faith, and the "returning after 4 years" part kind of explains the "maybe not 100% in touch with current norms" part. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

What part of that was antagonistic? I was genuinely trying to find out why this was important to them so we could discuss it. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Polycarpa aurata: I think that Why? Help me understand why this is important to you. comes off as questioning the other editor's motives and implying that they may be less than wholesome. And that seems to be how they've taken it, too. Usually, it's not necessary to ask someone why they're making a set of edits, since we should assume that the answer is "to improve the encyclopedia". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I was hopeful that they and I could have an actual discussion as thinking and feeling persons so we could understand each other. I am not longer hopeful. I imagine something like this happens every time there is a mass shooting, especially when they are associated with some form of extremism. I think it would be useful to write up some kind of document that deals with the common issues, since mass shootings in the US show no signs of stopping. I am going to walk away from this terrible subject, but I will add this episode to the to my box of "things I have learned about Wikipedia". Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance

Okay, I think I've just about done everything I can do, and everything you have asked of me, and I hope this very dumb dispute is resolved quickly. According to my reading of the three-revert rule, I believe I can, and in the spirit of the rules of this Wiki I essentially must now revert the offending user's third revert, leaving the content as correct as it was when I made my first edit / correction to the page. If you disagree with that, please let me know. I just noticed that the lyrics are captioned incorrectly and wanted to quickly correct them, not get in an edit war or do anything controversial. -- 71.193.20.55 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to make it clear that the user seems to have communicated with me in the history of his talk page, wherein he just gave me the first actual indication of any kind that he would like me to stop posting on his page, saying "stop harassing me." Now, obviously I feel seriously harassed by this user, as I'm just trying to make a simple edit, but I did not feel that I was harassing him. The last new thing I posted was an edit-warring "warning" that I posted out of explicit direction from Wikipedia's page directing me to post that on his talk page. If that's harassment, then Wikipedia shouldn't tell users to do that. That said, I certainly won't post on his talk page anymore after reading that semi-obscure comment in his edit history.

Though, if I am essentially forbidden from communicating with him, whether in harsh terms or not, I don't see how he's ever going to change his mind on the issue or learn anything. So, it seems a very silly policy to me, but I'll respect it. -- 71.193.20.55 (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The user talk pages can be useful back-channels for clarifying edits; but editors are not required to change their minds. For Wikipedia changes, the article talk page is where the official discussion happens. There, editors have the option to participate or not, and re 3RR policies, it's the recognized go-to place for resolving issues. I see you're there. Let it do its work. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Roger that. However, I believed there was a quick and clear benefit, an element of efficiency, for posting on the user's page. I assumed he was making a mistake out of a lack of information and would benefit from understanding all of that. He didn't want to listen (both literally, apparently, and figuratively - even going so far as to say that he "[does] not care"), but then kept reverting my edits anyway. I previously understood the bit about where such content discussions should happen, but given ample evidence that the user was making improper use of his editing software and acting in bad faith, I had no faith that the user would participate on the talk page, given his highly false presupposition that I was engaging in simple vandalism. Simply put, he had no interest in discussing the subject and I wanted the correction to be made quickly, so I went directly to him. It works sometimes, sometimes not. -- 71.193.20.55 (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@71: Hi sorry, you caught me while I was out at dinner; seems this has been mostly taken care of by now? Another administrator has had a polite word with Blaze about listening to people's explanations of the edits that one reverted. And your change to the TimedText page has been let stand after some brief further confusion. (That doesn't mean it's the final answer, but at least a holding position.) For future reference, if you're in an edit war, you shouldn't revert someone just because they broke 3RR first; furthermore, in point of fact Blaze did not break 3RR, since it's the fourth revert where a bright-line violation occurs. Glad we have this sorted at least in the short term. You may want to check back in on the TimedText talk page in coming days to see if anyone else has anything to share. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Right. And true, no one actually violated 3RR. He threatened to block me for continuing to edit, which I felt was extreme and completely unwarranted, and I had a feeling it was quickly going the way of 3RR, which is why I notified him with that "warning", but yes, did not actually cross that line. Anyway, thanks for the input. Very appreciated. *phew* -- Eli 71.193.20.55 (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

David weiding

Perhaps a revdel of their edits [5] [6] [7]. Those stuffs certainly fall under purely offensive material. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally I don't like to revdel edits that are "just" bad words unless they're slurs or they're directed at someone, but if another admin wants to revdel, I don't object. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking users who are vandalising the Wiki. :) AKS (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Another duck for you

You recently blocked MDO Pro 1st (talk · contribs) as a sock of MugiwaraGO (talk · contribs), Royal Sportco (talk · contribs) then shows up straight away reinstating the same grammatically incorrect edits on Norway national football team here and here. I would make a SPI but figured it might be quicker to just bring this to you directly judging by how obviously this duck appears to be quacking since you had just made the block. Thanks. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• CU wise they're close enough, and DUCK is also good enough. I'll let you place the block, so you can get the $3 from the WMF. But I took the liberty of dropping a range block as well--apparently I've run into this sock's ranges before. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Good instinct, TylerBurden.  Blocked and tagged. @Drmies: $3??? Ah, you must be grandfathered in. These days we only get paid in company scrip. Every piece of bedding in my house is sewn-together "I edit Wikipedia" T-shirts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I only have one of those, and my daughter stole it. I had a troll, maybe they're still around, who liked to post pictures of me in that t-shirt, which was kind of one size too small for my portly manly belly. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I recall that picture, because I voted for you in the election you took it for. I thought it was a good look.
      I'm apparently entitled to a free T-shirt thanks to a giveaway on Meta, but when winning a prize comes with the catch "now you email us", sorta feels like they're asking me not to claim it. Which is fine by me since, like a large number of people in this diverse, global community, I don't wear T-shirts! Funny how everyone likes to talk about diversity, but no one likes to do anything about it.
      (On that note, I don't think that the relevant part of the WMF has any way of knowing what email address this account uses. So if someone wants a free T-shirt, I guess all they need to do is register a convincing email address...) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

RPP for Aytaç Şaşmaz

You declined to protect this article with the comment "All involved are autoconfirmed". I do not believe this is true. The biggest offender is a new user with 29 edits. See their TP, User talk:AyCem Fan where they have exhibited ownership, ignored requests to provide sources, disruptively insisted on adding a boyfriend/girlfriend to the infobox when the infobox is for spouses and/or long-term life partners only, and told me not to edit the article because I "am not familiar with the topic". The also left this on my talkpage. Please reconsider. MB 01:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@MB: You're right. I'd overlooked when the account was created. However, I still don't think semi-protection is necessary here. AyCem Fan has provided (if imperfectly, and after some hair-pulling) what you asked for: citations that the eponymous Ay and Cem are a couple. The inclusion of someone's girlfriend in their infobox is a content dispute, and it is an improper use of semi-protection to favor one side in a content dispute. You've removed the parameter; if the dispute continues past that, y'all can discuss on the talk page or pursue dispute resolution. And if ACF continues to be hostile toward you, then you can let me know or bring the matter to AN/I. But I don't think it would be compliant with the protection policy for me to semi at this juncture. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Hi, Tamzin. I wouldn't have revision deleted the IP posts on NinjaRobotPirate's page. (In fact, I saw them earlier, and didn't.) "Ordinary incivility" (compare the criteria for RD) should be reverted, of course, but I don't think it needs to be dignified with RD, even if there's a ridiculous 'death threat' in there. YMMV, of course. Bishonen | tålk 08:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC).

Hi Bish! :) I went for RD there because I've seen it used before by other admins on Glam-girlz death threats, and IMO death threats (even unconvincing ones) fall under the "grossly inappropriate threats" clause of RD3. If you disagree, though, I'm happy to start a discussion at WT:REVDEL. (Full disclosure, I've just touched up RD3 a bit to revert some undiscussed changes made by a CIR user last year and to remove a redundancy, but nothing that affects this—and all of which I'm happy to discuss at WT:REVDEL too of course.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirect of Russian invasion of Ukraine

Ma'am, I noticed your recommendation that 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine be the target of this redirect, and that article should have a hatnote referring to the other invasions of Ukraine. I have added that hatnote to the article, on the presumption the change to the redirect will be approved, but have not changed the redirect, that's either the proponent or moderator's job. Thanks for the suggestion.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Page protection for Titan the Robot

Dear Tamzin, thank you for looking into the request for page protection of Titan the Robot. I understand and respect your concern that the malicious removal of encyclopedic content of a page does not necessarily warrant to put the page under protection if such edits only take place every few month or years. I also appreciate that you added the page to your watchlist to see if protection of the page may be necessary after all. That's an adequate measure. I also write these lines to explain my reasons for filling the request. It was not just the brazenness to use Wikipedia as an extension of that company's questionable marketing scheme, but my astonishment about how long this is already being done. For 14 years this commercial product has been advertised on Wikipedia and every time someone tries to shine some light on it, the provided facts and sources are being deleted shortly after. I understand the argument that "it happens only every few years", but the real issue is that only every few years someone comes by and takes their time to correct that nonsense - and then it takes only a couple of days until that correction is deleted. It's not an important piece of public interest. That's why it happens only every few month or years. But from looking at the version history it becomes clear that there are some people that, for 14 years, make sure that "their" page remains in line with the company website and that is a fundamental difference to a page being struck by random vandalism every few years. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on that page and, as you suggested, will ping you as soon as the next malicious edit is done. Thank you again for your time and effort that you put into keeping Wikipedia running and have a great day. MiBerG (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Tamzin, the page has been manipulated again and again it's from a UK-based IP (the company of the product is UK-based): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titan_the_Robot&action=history MiBerG (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Copy of Deleted page: Peder Engelstad Pioneer Village

I am looking at getting a copy of the deleted page Peder Engelstad Pioneer Village and if possible its Talk page and edit history. This summer I am leading a series of eight Wikpedia Edit-a-thons on Minnesota local history in Minnesota's rural communities. The Minnesota Historical Society is sponsoring these workshops. The Peder Engelstad Pioneer Village may be a good cautionary tale for local history museums wishing to create a page on Wikipedia for their organization. During these workshops we will be focusing on the history of their community. I am not encouraging them to add their local history museums but if they choose to, they should know the correct ways of doing it, and the need to provide better sources. Myotus (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Myotus: That sounds reasonable. :) The close was as "soft delete", so if you want I can restore the page and its talk in your userspace. (You could then U1-tag if you stop having a use for them.) Or I can email you the PDFs. If you'd prefer the latter, please email me through Special:EmailUser/Tamzin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Restoring the page and its talk in my userspace sounds like a good idea! Thank you. Myotus (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Myotus:  Done @ User:Myotus/Peder Engelstad Pioneer Village. There was no talkpage to restore. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Same ip vandal appears to be at it again

The vandal you blocked yesterday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:49.206.43.116 seems to be at it again today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/45.112.48.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers:_Age_of_Extinction&action=history the IP address looks similar, the pattern of vandalism looks very similar, and is simply happening to the previous Transformers film article.

I hope the disruptive user can be blocked without needing to lock the article. -- 109.78.202.195 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe report this at WP:AIV? AIV is a more general vandalism noticeboard 67.21.154.193 (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

CCI

Hello Tamzin I hope you're doing well. Would you mind joining the copyvio conversation here. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for answering the IP on my talk page! I hope you are having a wonderful pride month. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

New message from 3PPYB6

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Toki Pona § Sonja Lang re-redirected. You might not be able to join as you are very busy (which I can understand). If you ever want to opt out, just reply with a "no". — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi 3PPYB6. While my COI on this subject is minor enough that I felt it was acceptable to comment briefly and cautiously about notability before the article was published (and execute a hopefully uncontroversial histmerge once it was), I don't think it's appropriate for me to participate in any AfD or in deletion-related talkpage proceedings, unless it's to pass along a message from jan Sonja, who at this time has not asked me to say anything. I hope that makes sense. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Totally makes sense. Until we meet again, somewhere on these 55 million pages… — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hadassah

Hi Tamzin. I hope you're good and fine. Sadly my laptop got accidentally damaged a week or two ago, and it is waiting for technician to arrive. The Dell care says that due to lockdown in China, the part is delayed in transit and would arrive late. I'm tired of editing on mobile. I completed a RMT move request associated with Hadassah, however I notice it is linked from a large number of articles. Although I tried to fix few, it looks a huge task to be done from mobile phone. Could you guide me to some tools that I could use? Regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 07:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile: Yes, I saw that move—"Hadasa" is my middle name (literally) and I had the DAB page watchlisted owing to a resulting interest in the name—and have been nibbling away at some of the dablinks. I use NavPops for DABfixing, which doesn't work on mobile... Maybe I dream of horses knows of some better options? Also, sorry to hear about your predicament, Aafi. I actually happen to be in the exact opposite one right now, laptop but no cell phone. I know how frustrating all that can be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile Unfortunately, I know nothing about smartphone editing, but personally, I use DisamAssist, AWB, or dab solver to repair disambigulation links. In fact, personally, I wouldn't recommend doing such a detail-orientated task on a mobile device. Like, maybe in theory, I'd repair a few links from my phone, but not a large amount.

Thank you to Tamzin for thinking of me, tho. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile: Cullen328 also knows a lot about smartphone editing I believe. Funcrunch (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

CafeGurrier is back

154.121.52.198/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)?
CafeGurrier66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey Tamzin,

CaffeGurrier is back on the IP range I pointed out at RFD a few weeks back. It's obviously them, edits like telling admins how long they should block people for [8] reviewing other people's blocks [9] mucking about with sockpuppet templates [10], tweaking block templates [11] and requesting changes to MediaWiki:Infiniteblock [12] [13] [14] are all WP:DUCK behaviour. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact range they're on. Here's another pair of diffs of them reinserting a change on a block template [15] [16]. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. They really are up and down that /16, with some apparent collateral damage. What I've done for now is to block the /16 from editing any namespace other than main, talk, and a few namespaces CafeGurrier has never disrupted. Since the disruption to date has been in the namespaces I blocked them from, hopefully that will scare them off. Just a week for now, but can be made longer in the future if they keep it up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin!

Yeah, I couldn't figure out a range smaller than the /16, every time I thought I'd found something smaller I'd spot another edit in a different range. We'll just have to see if the partial block has the desired effect. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

More mail

Hello, Tamzin/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

What does MBMAD mean?

I couldn’t find anything about it in Google, and I didn’t wanna unnecessarily spread a side topic in the ANI thread. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday: Oh, just a habit I have of abbreviating people's names that way. Mrbeastmodeallday. I even do it with my own name, shortening "Tamzin" to "TZ", even though that's breaking it into syllables rather than into smaller words. (Although... checks Wiktionary... I guess you could say that Tam- means "twin" while -zin means "feminine". Fun with bound morphemes!) Anyways, autobiographical tangent aside, hope that clears that up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

you'd call me a 3A or Triple A of something similar then? ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 15:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Review

Hi, i started an ANI [17] i think it was not taken seriously by an admin who is going to overlook over transgression, no matter how many they were or the fact that they are still ongoing (also i need someone to check for a possible case of sockpuppetry). Would you mind to take a look at it, if you can? Thanks anyway. Cheers. --Opencross (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ashley Gjøvik

Hello, before this gets stale, I noticed your administrative action regarding editors of this article. It seems to me that in addition to User:Bobrossghost, User:Delhowder and User:Wafflenugget may also be part of the ban evasion/abusing multiple accounts problem. The edits by these accounts are admittedly a couple of months old and quite limited, but they do show the same pattern. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Yeah, I noticed those. Since SIARH has been checked at least twice now, I'm guessing if they didn't come up before, they won't come up in a new check. Either way, I already gave SIARH the longest tempblock I've ever given an account, so I don't think it changes things hugely from a user-conduct perspective whether these two accounts are them, unless of course they start up again. The accounts are clearly SPAs on a contentious article, so if there's anything they've added that you think is questionable, I think that would be reasonable to remove. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Continued disruption from Hamishcm

User:Hamishcm was blocked from editing The Open Championship for 1 week, and after the block expired, returned and made another edit of the same type. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks. Grumbles. Siteblocked indef. If they'd like to talk their way down to an indef pblock, I'll hear them out, but... Well we'll see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  And now various IPs have been making the same sort of edit. I'm sure they're not all the same person, as this is a contentious issue and this tends to happen every year in the leadup to the event. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Phinumu: You have earned another grumble. :P Okay, I've just gone ahead and semi-protected it till a few days after the tournament ends. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NeuroSex Sockpuppetry

Hello Tamzin,

Please excuse my inexperience with Wikipedia. Thank you for your important work in cleaning up some of the Neurosex sockpuppets on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Wilson_(author).

I’ve been a silent observer for some time, and it has been disturbing to witness the many sockpuppet accounts editing porn-related pages with single-minded attention. The same party appears to be behind most (all?) of the 73 suspect accounts listed below. This campaign is long-standing and deeply concerning, involving dozens of fake Wikipedia accounts. Could you please investigate them all and take any appropriate action? I have also submitted this to the "Sockpuppet Investigations" page, but I'm not sure I've done it correctly.

CheckUser on NeuroSex's 70-some suspected Wikipedia aliases is recommended because these aliases are part of a long-standing and extensive Wikipedia sockpuppetry campaign. CheckUser may help confirm the geolocation and other details that could determine whether the same individual runs the accounts.

I also hope you will remove all of the edits by any of these sockpuppets you ban, or have banned in the past. They appear to have been made in bad faith or for self-serving or malicious ends. Can anything be done to prevent future edits by this puppeteer? I did not include "diff" links in this report due to how extensive the situation is and the fact that every single one of the edits made by each of the 70+ sockpuppet accounts merits examination.

It’s especially disturbing that Wikipedia user Tgeorgescu consistently protects, aids and appears to collaborate with Neurosex’s many sockpuppet accounts. This is a long-standing pattern used to maintain control of multiple pages related to pornography. Tgeorgescu ensures that the sockpuppet edits are incorporated while removing good-faith edits by the public. Can he be prevented from doing this? As he too appears to be acting in bad faith, can his edits and protections made in tandem with any of these sockpuppets be reversed? This tag-team campaign has been operating for years and skewing the public’s understanding of porn-related topics.

As you know, Neurosex appears to have created a number of sockpuppet accounts to edit the page concerning Gary Wilson (Author). Tgeorgescu took no action against Neurosex’s sockpuppet accounts. Instead, he incorporated all suggested edits and collaborated with the accounts on the Talk page, going so far as to improve the formatting of the edits of a sockpuppet account. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Wilson_(author)&diff=1093106044&oldid=1093105879) This is but one of many such examples of his activities in support of Neurosex's sockpuppetry.

There’s no reason to think the above list of probable Neurosex-related sockpuppet accounts is complete, but it shows a disturbing pattern - and abuse of Wikipedia’s rules. Note: A handful of accounts in the list below were banned by Wikipedia some time ago (and others by you more recently), but most have yet to be investigated.

Thank you for considering this request and please excuse my limited Wikipedia skills.

|1=ScienceIsForever |2=PatriotsAllTheWay |3=76.168.99.24 |4=ScienceEditor |5=JupiterCrossing |6=NotGaryWilson |7=Neuro1973 |8=209.194.90.6 |9=172.91.65.30 |10=130.216.57.166 |11=71.196.154.4 |12=Editorf231409 |13=Cash_cat |14=TestAccount2018abc |15=Suuperon |16=NeuroSex |17=Defender1984 |18=OMer1970 |19=185.51.228.245 |20=130.216.57.166 |21=67.129.129.52 |22=SecondaryEd2020 |23=Vjardin2 |24=204.2.36.41 |25=Wikibhw |26=Baseballreader899 |27=NewsYouCanUse2018 |28=Sciencearousal |29=101.98.39.36 |30=89.15.239.239 |31=Turnberry2018 |32=Etta0xtkpiq45ulaey2 |33=Anemicdonalda |34=2601:281:CC80:7EF0:9505:4EB1:105A:D01 |35=DIsElArIONORsIvOCtOperT |36=Mateherrera |37=Nicklouisegordon |38=Faustinecliffwalker |39=NeTAbygO |40=JackReacher2018 |41=Iuaefiubweiub |42=Dfht_w |43=PreNsfib |44=Tp89j9c4t98 |45=ioletta2019 |46=Islamaryoryan |47=Dfgnbweo0 |48=MERABDen |49=Transmitting2020 |50=Jammoth |51=203.8.180.215 |52=LOckAGOCKetOr |53=EffortMoose |54=Imp65 |55=CtRAmENtagNatK |56=Sdlfin |57=Sdjbaw;uo |58=EdfweG |59=Uoheargopuherg |60=RunyonCanyonDog |61=Silverberrycomposer |62=OwDOnimEDGENiORmyTErentea |63=Strawberrycerealbat |64=Carbonorgantennisowl |65=Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judo |66=47.151.132.35 |67=GAVERushaMiciNGSlANG |68=2603:8001:6701:1882:193F:3771:BD09:E675 |69=Potatochipspievoyager1 |70=Insightcookiesbrightmir |71=Baseballhippopotamus |72=TBsjfQbEuaHRn |73=Tgeorgescu

Keyhound (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I've responded at the SPI. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Tamzin, sincere thanks for your contributions to Draft:Casa Ruby. I had lost some steam after trying to clean up at Ruby Corado (which still has quite a lot of unsourced BLP, promotional language, and general style issues). I think the Casa Ruby draft now meets WP:NORG and could be moved to mainspace as a stub, but I'll take a pass at it sometime this week to make it a bit more substantial. And of course, any further help at these articles is greatly appreciated. Thank you again, Politanvm ^talk 18:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Politanvm: Well, like I said, I was glad to see someone's working on it. Casa Ruby strikes me as the kind of organization that, were an article on it to land at AfD, at least one person would !vote delete simply because people are bad at understanding the significance of local organizations in cities they're not from, but which would be kept in the end. They're probably the second-best-known LGBTQ-oriented nonprofit in one of the largest cities (with one of the most notable LGBTQ communities) in the country, and I think the sources bear that out. Another paragraph or two and I think it should be good to go as stub-bordering-on-start. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Only 3 months later, inspired by your RfA, I've built it out and moved it to mainspace: Casa Ruby

Thanks again for your help, and a well-deserved congratulations! Politanvm ^talk 01:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

RfA debrief and acknowledgments

Hello, friends. I intentionally didn't say much in the immediate aftermath of my RfA because I wanted a bit of time to clear my head (and quietly reacquaint myself with the tools in the meantime). I've had a lot to think about, and a lot to say, and I've written it down at User:Tamzin/340/112/16: An RfA debrief.

The most exciting thing about publishing this is that I can stop thinking about this RfA and continue full steam ahead deleting (and keeping) redirects, blocking (and not blocking) suspected sockpuppets, and generally using my expanded toolset to make the community better.

For those who do have any lingering questions or concerns about anything that came up at the RfA, do please feel free to reach out, on this talkpage or by email.

A bit belatedly, I would like to thank:

• My mother, for schlepping 16 hours to come keep me company as things got bad
• My father (Z''L), for teaching me to stand up for what I believe in
• My found family—BiomatrixBackup and her fiancée, who is too cool for Wikipedia—for letting me vent for hours
• Drmies and BDD, for being the two best nominators a !​gal could ask for
• TheresNoTime, for pushing me to run, and so many other things
• Firefly, my would-be flightmate if not for some slowness on my part, a faithful ally before, during, and after this RfA
• Tavix, Ritchie333, Trialpears, RoySmith, Vanamonde93, and one admin I spoke to only by email, for nomination offers I was forced to decline due only to a surplus of options. Maybe next time, y'all! (Joke. Please no.)
• Vami IV, for providing me with the anthem for this slow-motion trainwreck, "Fear Is Not My Guide"
• theleekycauldron, both honorary younger enby sibling and honorary Jewish mother
• Floquenbeam (even though he jynxed everything), FeydHuxtable, Celestina007, casualdejekyll, Ixtal, Elli, Endwise, BusterD (also an honorary Jewish mother), zzuuzz, ezlev, Paradise Chronicle, Zippybonzo, ARoseWolf, WereSpielChequers, ScottishFinnishRadish, Doug Weller, Paine Ellsworth, Dreamy Jazz, Mythdon, I dream of horses, Serial Number 54129, and everyone else who reached out to me, publicly and privately, during the RfA, especially those who talked me out of withdrawing
• Everyone who's congratulated me since the RfA passed, whom I'd name but it would exceed the ping limit
• Each and every one of my supporters. In particular:
  • Nableezy, for getting it
  • MastCell, also for getting it, and for in doing so giving me the only good laugh I had all week
• Every oppose and neutral that gave me constructive material to work with. There were many, and I will keep them in mind.
• The entire English Wikipedia bureaucrat team, for their careful reading of consensus. At first I was grumpy when it went to a 'crat chat, but now I can say that 9 bureaucrats agreed that there was consensus. How many admins can say that?
  • In particular, Primefac, for consistently making sense of the chaos during the RfA
• Every editor who makes this encyclopedia great
• And of course, the cetaceans who swim in the waters off Cape May

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else hear this playing in the background while reading? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you took a little time to process everything. The comment related to your political status (or something) made me feel that if you could show that you won't let politics influence your decisions then you would be a good admin. Also glad to see that you've found the cetaceans you've needed ^[Humor]. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, and a belated congratulations! DanCherek (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Reading this was very enlightening. And congratulations on becoming an admin! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. casualdejekyll 21:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Yet another duck for you

	Quack!
	At least this one doesn't require more work on your part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a less limited user block

For this range: [18]. The scope of disruption is broad, rather than confined to a few articles or topics. I've been dealing with them primarily at 2008 Noida double murder case. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:3852:ACFE:34E1:8A4C (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty big /32 with a lot of collateral damage, but fortunately in this case, all edits are coming from the same /64, which is one 4.3 billionth the size of a /32. So, 2001:8F8:1A65:8BA3::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked 2 weeks for DE/CIR, in addition to the pblock on the /32. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin, thank you for making that distinction. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:3852:ACFE:34E1:8A4C (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nepal IP editor

Hi Tamzin - hope you are well. You previously helped with a block on this IP after they kept adding unsourced data into BLPs (mainly they subject's height). Anyway, the block has expired and they're back to the same pattern. Please could you help again? Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Thanks for letting me know. Made it a month this time, and mass-rb'd again. (Thankfully fewer this time than last.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You're famous

Go Tamzin!
Go Tamzin!
Go Tamzin!

Writeup in Slate. Much more of that and someone will create an article about you.... which (IMHO, you may disagree) would suck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Ha, I was saying to a friend the other day, "Does Tamzin meet WP:SUSTAINED?" would make a good question on the Wikilawyer Bar Exam. Significant RS coverage as a little kid, a single paragraph in The Advocate like 10 years ago, and now this. Could make for an exciting AfD! :D (But yeah, not sure I'd want a Wikipedia article... I've heard anyone can edit them‽ Seems kinda dodgy if you ask me.)

And I'll take a moment to thank User:Stephenbharrison for a great write-up. I wish he'd had space to fit in some of my comments on neutrality (namely: editorial neutrality is a principle I was raised with and one I take very seriously; I agree we do lean too far left on some articles, especially conservative people's BLPs, but have no idea how to even begin tackling that; and "fuck this war" about the invasion of Ukraine is, I would venture, a significantly more controversial statement than "Don't put Trump supporters in positions of power on a website", but for some reason no one seemed to care about that being at the top of my userpage the entire RfA, and what does that tell us with how this community interacts with the concept of neutrality?), but I understand space is at a premium and there was a lot to say. Well, hopefully next time I make the news it's for something more respectable like wheel-warring with the WMF. ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Tazmin, congratulations on your having earned an administratorship. Thank you for volunteering to bear the responsibilities that come with your new role. Wikipedia benefits greatly from your work, your skills, and your character. I am sorry that you have suffered the consequences of other people's weakly reasoned conclusions. I stand with you. —catsmoke ^talk 03:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Now I'm curious about the significant RS coverage as a child – enough by itself to qualify for GNG? But I suppose revealing that would be an act of (self-)doxxing; I would Wikilawyer in the direction of respecting personal privacy. – Anon423 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur on that being a good write-up. Nicely done all around! XOR'easter (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

IP Based Information

I was reading through It Could Be Possible’s mentorship page as I was just wondering why their autopatrol request was declined but that’s beside the point. I saw your advice on IPs there, and was wondering, firstly, how do LTA’s proxy your IP, secondly, what tools do you use to say if the IP is being proxied or if people use a VPN and whatnot as I would quite like to run the tools on my own network, for my own reasons. Also, somewhat related, have you considered becoming a checkuser, you are probably fit for the role. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 15:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: An LTA proxying your IP in particular is theoretically possible, but not really something you should worry about. They would have to get very lucky or be very skilled (and know your IP to begin with). Sorta like asking "What if someone picks the lock for my car, hotwires it, steals it, and then races around the area racking up speeding tickets and toll violations, and then returns my car without leaving any evidence of what they've done?" Possible, but vanishingly unlikely.

I have access to a premium API that lets me see which IPs are known proxies. You can see what's been said publicly about that here. Last I heard, there's some discussion of incorporating that into the "IP info" Beta feature that all admins are able to turn on. So yeah, if you see me block an IP as a proxy, it's probably because of that. (Exception: There's one sockmaster whose location is very well-established, who often uses proxies in different countries; I block those even if the API doesn't catch them, since their location is prime facie evidence that they're proxies.) As to running these tools yourself, I'm afraid I can't help with that, unless you'd like to buy a subscription to such a service yourself.

Being a CU would have upsides and downsides (makes it harder to make behavior-only blocks). Not currently something I'm thinking about, but who knows. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too concerned about my IP as I can just ask you for IPBE if someone proxies it, but if I were to become a CU or SPI clerk, or an admin, then I would consider splurging on the tool, if it isn't already on the IP info tool by then. Also, what benefits does adminship give you with the IP info tool? | Zippybonzo | Talk | 19:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: Currently, the IP info tool doesn't show anything that can't also be seen through public on-wiki sources or Bullseye, and so its primary benefit is just one of convenience (namely, being able to see geolocation with one click). When/if IP masking is implemented, it will be more relevant (but also apparently some of that convenience might go away since you'll need good cause to unmask?? it's unclear currently). One thing I'm hoping they add soon is the ability to see the smallest assigned subnet, which is extremely useful in making rangeblocks. Currently I see that with User:GeneralNotability/ip-ext-info.js, which itself pulls from whois-referral, but that isn't as well-integrated as IP Info is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I just lookup with WHOIS, it works for me. When are they rolling out IP masking? They have been blabbing on about it since I joined practically. With the IP masking, the IP info tool also logs everything, I just can't see those logs. :( | Zippybonzo | Talk | 20:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Help?

Hi, I chose your name from the recently-active admin list, and I was hoping for some help and/or advice. I encountered some hateful speech on the Harold Shipman talk page, specifically this very old post from an inactive IP user and a more recent reply from a very active user. I'm reluctant to post on AN/I because I'm not sure if either comment calls for RevDeletion, a trout slap, something in between, or no action at all.

What do you think ought to be done, if anything? If there's something I should do, I'll be happy to do it. Thanks in advance. Matuko (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Matuko: I've removed a number of the comments in the thread (including MisterCake's, which I agree was a bit beyond the pale, although the more direct issue is just WP:NOTFORUM) and hatted what was left. I don't think any revdel is needed. MisterCake, I see you're not too active these days, and I realize this was a several years ago, but for the record, I would characterize a remark like the Jewish penchant for being radicals, in the context of someone who killed 250 people, as, at a minimum, inadvisable. It's also, FWIW, factually incorrect to say that most Jews are atheists; in the U.S., at least, it's somewhere between 14% and 50% depending how you define "Jew" and "atheist". In my cursory search I couldn't find as recent or detailed numbers for the UK, but it seems roughly comparable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Matuko (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

While I won't pretend I know how to artfully phrase anything, it seems to me I said "probably the majority" and that is a lot higher than average, hence the article on this website singling them out. That also seems to miss the point I hoped to get across. I cited Jewish atheists to say that there is such a thing entails Jews are a people who have a religion rather than a religion. One would be sufficient. That there's not just one but several, seems to mean one is feigning indignation to avoid an uncomfortable subject. Christian atheist or Muslim atheist is of course nonsense, while Irish or Taiwanese atheist is not. And it seems relevant to note which ethnic group he came from. Hard to imagine such pushback with another one. With that aside, I noted his parents being Methodists makes it unlikely he was Jewish. And that there are other stereotypes aside from "Racist Jew murderer of whites" or something to think he was Jewish. His name: there's that joke about "Spiderman" being Jewish and pronounced like Spiderm'n. His profession. And by radicalism I did not mean so much a political comment . Perhaps I should have said subversion or ostracism or something, rather than radicalism, as I am not commenting on his politics, or his drive for destruction, but the feeling of otherness somebody with his drive for destruction must have had. Like when they offer it as an explanation for why Montaigne was a skeptic. Or why the appeal of atheism. Or radical politics. Granted it's a just so story. I could have said "those responding with his religious affiliation are simply failing to answer the question which they feel is illegitimate, it seems to me a legitimate question, however probably not" but I had the vain hope of explaining why I feel that way. Sorry if that clarifies nothing. Cake (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Re Christian atheist or Muslim atheist is of course nonsense, I was surprised to learn that Christian atheists do exist, at least in Europe. Check out the book Society Without God by Phil Zuckerman. Funcrunch (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I know a Uyghur Muslim atheist from China. See also Christian atheism, Cultural Christians, and Cultural Muslims. (Muslim atheism is a redlink, while Muslim atheist redirects to Cultural Muslims... Not sure if the former should be created to match the latter, or the latter should be deleted under WP:REDYES.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

May need to broaden a block

2409:4052:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Whilst the pageblock seems to have been worth a try, the (individual?) responsible for the disruption from this range has switched to other topics, and there's rather a lot of them. Time to switch it to a soft siteblock? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Hmm... Well, as a Hail Mary here I've blocked just the /36 that the officeholder list vandal has most recently been on, 2409:4052::/36 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). If that doesn't hold, then yeah, may have to do the /32. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Press

You probably know you're on Slate. I was going to add it at WP:PRESS 22, but per WP:OUTING I first ask if you have volunteered your name on en-wiki somewhere already? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yep, User:Tamzin/Disclosures and commitments § Identity. Might want to also update Wikipedia:Stephen Harrison. Thanks for asking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll do that, never seen that page. No Wikipedia:Omer Benjakob? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You were, kind of, compared to F. Scott Fitzgerald. That's something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've just been reading the article too. I must say, Tamzin, I found it very revealing and would like to thank you for your sensible approach. I see that your have made a few unsuccessful attempts at writing articles about women. If you would would like to help to reduce the gender gap once more, I would encourage you to join WikiProject Women in Red where we'll be able to help you along. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Ipigott: I've interacted with WiR a bit before, and may swing by again, but I'm curious, which articles of mine are you referring to? I can't recall ever writing a biography, feminine, masculine, or otherwise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for getting back to me on this, Tamzin. You obviously started out with a keen interest in articles about women. In 2013 you created Allison Williams (actress) which was deleted. It was obviously a good choice as it has since been recreated. Ditto Rukmini Callimachi. More recently you attempted Death of Martine Moïse (possibly a misleading title for Martine Moïse). Then I see you showed interest in Alee (disambiguation) and the two related women. I found these in your Xtools article list. Now that you are an administrator, perhaps you would like to join those of your women colleagues who have contributed women's biographies and related articles about women. You would, of course, be setting a good example to your many supporters. But if you are too tied up with other priorities, then I fully understand.--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Ipigott: Ah, the first of those two titles were just deleted due to pagemoves; in both cases the article already existed. The Moïse page was a redirect to her husband's death, after she was reported dead, which I G7'd when I realized that the source wasn't reliable enough. Regardless, I had a positive experience with WPWiR in the discussion about whether Sonja Lang (for whom I was playing COI intermediary) was notable; I'll definitely keep the project in mind if my editing brings me back in that direction. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

49.207.225.47

I blocked them for 24 hours for disruption. According to the edit filter log, they had been warned of the possibility of a block twice yet continued attempting to make those edits. No, it wasn't spam, but if they keep doing something after being advised not to, it's disruptive. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Fair enough. I actually have a courtesy note in the opposite direction, regarding 2601:500:8800:C320:849F:71D1:7E7E:EFBC (AIV report). I noticed that there actually were past warnings elsewhere on the /64, at User talk:2601:500:8800:C320:898B:9532:AEE4:68BF and User talk:2601:500:8800:C320:5828:D755:C339:6F1D, which the user had disregarded, only becoming more intense in their personal attacks, escalating from "Fuck you" to death threats. The /64 appears to be pretty static, so I blocked it for a month (and also reported to T&S per WP:EMERGENCY). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, yeah, I had declined on that one since there were just three edits, but agreed that the edit summaries ought to be redacted so I did that. But I hadn't seen the /64 then. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

all right

support me 103.149.159.2 (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, please? :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Beast

There are many suckpuppet edits in Pooja Hegde saying about Beast. Beast is a successful movie. It has collected ₹250 (US$3.10) crore against a budget of ₹150 (US$1.90) crore. In all cast of that film the movie is considered as success. But in Pooja Hegde, the heroine of that film it is considered as not successful. Please investigate against both Krimuk2.0 and NavjotSR and revert to last good revision 1094891126 by Rosyyyy. Thank you 103.166.244.251 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Asking SPI clerks to proxy edits for you continues to be a bad way to get away with sockpuppetry. Blocked 1 month. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Update on closed SPI for tejinderpsingh/dimnumero

Hello! I saw that you assigned a partial block to dimnumero in this SPI and I thought I should update that the accounts physicsenduser and IP 158.144.113.46 were also adding the same references and very similar rude messages to the talk pages of users that modify the Fine structure constant article. These edits were before the case was closed but I only just saw them, so I apologize if the information is spurious or belongs somewhere else.

links to revisions: [19] [20] [21] [22]

Lucasisaacfrye (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lucasisaacfrye: Thanks for reaching out. And it's fine taking this here; better than filing a new SPI at least. Thanks for the new information. I'm not sure if it would have changed my decision if I'd had it sooner, but as it stands, I think I'd like to live things be for now. I've told Dimnumero that they can only edit under one username, and given their past behavior across several accounts I'm not going to have much patience for shenanigans, so if Physicsenduser or the IP light back up again, I'll probably indef both accounts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Willing to compromise on the HP Dev One

I was reading more about this laptop, and one article said that the model is "based on the HP EliteBook 845 G8" (https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/06/hp-dev-one-linux-laptop-specs-price). There are still some significant software and hardware differences from a regular Elitebook, so maybe parts of the article should be merged into HP EliteBook? Yleventa2 (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Yleventa2: Yeah, that might be reasonable. Sections of articles have more room to get stats-heavy than stubs do. If you do merge it, just make sure not to include features that would be redundant with the baseline features for that line, though. @Firefly: You're the first talkpage watcher who comes to mind who's written about PCs; any thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Socking at 2000 Mules

Feel free to remove the edit request section you hatted. I have no objections, and it seems like Firefangledfeathers is the kind of editor that wouldn't mind either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I say sweep it all away. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ScottishFinnishRadish: I've archived it, and the other Makofakeoh ERs. With five IP blocks on them now, I'm hoping they'll leave the page alone, but if you do see any other IPs from Colorado pushing that same POV (which, unusually for a case like this, appears to be the majority POV, but they're finding a way to push it nonetheless!), do let me know, and I'll give the talkpage a few weeks' AE semi. I'd do that now, but if at all possible I'd like to avoid semiing an open RfC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

defund the police

Moved to Talk:Defund the police

 – -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

User violating their block

Hi Tamzin the user appears to be editing in violation of the specific block conditions you set. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks, Polyamorph. Dealt with. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

IP socks of Jomontgeorge

Hey, on Rangasthalam (soundtrack), several IP socks of Jomontgeorge have been re-adding this non-free image of Pooja Hegde File:Jigelu_Rani.jpg. The image file was created by a sock of Jomontgeorge, Ancyran. Can something be done about this? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: Hmm, they're all over a somewhat busy /36 range. For now I've widened the existing pblock on 2409:4073:4000:0:0:0:0:0/36 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) to include that article, your talkpage, and the file namespace. If they start disrupting other pages from that range, let me know, and I'll look into siteblocking. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ancyran

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi its Ancyrann, alternative account of Ancyran. My former account was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. It is said that "multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons." I didn't don't done any bad to Wikipedia using the former account, please see my contributions. I only have 2.5% of deleted edits, means less number of vandalism and all. I want to contribute more to Wikipedia. Can you give me permission to edit. It's my humble request. Ancyrann (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A messenger award for you!

		Messenger award
		Thank you for trying to get the message out there at DYK! Bruxton (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

76.20.110.116 again

Hey Tamzin,

76.20.110.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

At SPI a few days ago you asked me to drop you a message if this editor showed up again. Well, the month long block BBB23 put on this IP has just expired, and they've gone straight back to the same topics and edits as before - 2020, california, shopping malls and questions at the teahouse. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI I've also reported at WP:AIV. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

2 months, thanks for calling. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin! 192.76.8.85 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin They're back again as 2600:1010:B149:A097:8846:CA2E:F2D8:7069 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Also 172.81.159.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but Daniel case seems to have already got that one. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

really? Why did you found me that I’m a Sockpuppet2600:1010:B149:A097:8846:CA2E:F2D8:7069 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I never did anything wrong. 2600:1010:B149:A097:8846:CA2E:F2D8:7069 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You were on a vandalism and trolling spree literally a couple of hours ago [23] [24] [25] [26]. 20:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC) 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 for a week. Only just realized this is the "If 2020 was a person" vandal. Thanks as always, Oxford IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello

I don't know what the qualifications for revision deletion are, but could you please delete the revisions in my talk page history from 09:09 to 10:18 (cleanup mess) on this day? It contains vandalism and spam made by an IP user. —Princess Faye ^{(my talk)} 12:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Princess Faye. The relevant criteria here in CRD are 2 and 3. However, RD2 does not apply to "'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations", and IP49's remarks seem, sadly, "ordinary". RD3 also probably does not apply as the comments, while disruptive, are in my opinion not purely disruptive since they relate to a real content dispute (and as such might be relevant to someone trying to understand that content dispute). However, I will ask in #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect if another admin can give a second opinion on this; in the future, you're always welcome to come to that channel with a revdel request. Either way, please know that comments such as 49's are not tolerated on this wiki. The only reason I haven't blocked them is because they apologized (and thus WP:NOTPUNITIVE comes into play), but I'll still be keeping an eye on them. In the future, the best response to a comment like this is to give an only warning for personal attacks ({{subst:uw-npa4im}}), and to report to AIV or AN/I if the attacks continue. Continuing to argue with someone like that is usually feeding the trolls. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on Username Reports

I've been having a very stressful week here on Wikipedia and I couldn't think straight. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: I understand. Please do be more careful in the future, though. If you do find your stress levels getting to the point where you're sending things to the wrong noticeboard or such, that's often a sign that you might want to step away from editing for a few hours or days, or at least focus on only a single thing on-wiki. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felony Flats (2nd nomination)

Hello, since you were part of the original AfD for this article, and since nothing much has changed, I do hereby invite your participation in this discussion again. Thanks Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Khalil Ahmed Khan, possible sock

Draft:Khalil Ahmed Khan was created by Kic321 a couple of days ago. Kic321 Also popped up on my watchlist, which is suspicious. What's interesting here is that the article was previously deleted twice and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalil Ahmed Khan discussion was closed in 2018 as G5 since the previous version was created by the spam blocked Beltwrestling-786 in 2016. Problem is that I can't see the deleted versions to probe further here, and I can't find a SPI on Beltwrestling-786, so I'm left with the beginning of something to look at, but I can't really take it from here to SPI. The draft is promotional in tone, but I don't see an obvious copyvio. Can you take a look at the deleted versions of Khan and the possible connections between the three accounts (2016, 2018, now) here? Pikavoom ^Talk 13:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Pikavoom: There's some slight similarities in the ledes, but overall the draft is pretty different in content from the deleted article. Reads to me more like a case where someone's decided that if they can't do it, they'll pay someone else instead. For now, I've G11'd it (Actively building on his career, Khan has managed to pursue two diverse career fields, mastering expertise in both martial arts and the legal profession. ... Unlike many other sports organizations in Pakistan, he has also ensured the process of accountability in his organization by supervising at the performance of players and coaches personally ... Holding various roles having been involved in multiple sports projects for over 30 years, Khalil Khan’s contributions in terms of actively working towards the preservation and promotion of Traditional Sports and Games are valuable.) and left {{uw-paid1}}. Let's see where things go from here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Pikavoom and @Tamzin: Firstly I would like to clarify that I have not been engaged by any paying entity or person to join Wikipedia and edit for them as I have already clarified to @Tamzin. You have seen the differences between the previous articles on the subject and the current draft which has been G11'd by @Tamzin. As I replied to her before as well, I would once again request the both of you to overturn the speedy deletion and replace the promotional or advertising content from the article if you believe it is not supported by verifiable citations. The lines mentioned by @Tamzin can be deleted or replaced and if any other content in the article is in such tone as well. Although I have joined this platform just a few days back I am sure that with experienced editors and administrators like both of you I will be able to learn more about how to contribute to this platform. For now, before reviewing or requesting for undeletion I wanted to contact the both of you to request to overturn this speedy deletion and allowing me to replace any promotional content from the article. Please guide me regarding the possible solutions to this issue. Thank you Kic321 (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
    • As I said on your talkpage:

      The G11 was due to a pervasive promotional tone, of the sort one might see on someone's personal website or in press material. You're welcome to ask another admin to review the deletion. If they see a way to restore the draft with promotional content removed, they have my blessing to do so. Alternately, you may appeal to the community at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

      And I'll extend that here to say that if any admin among my talkpage watchers sees a way to restore, they can feel free to. Do note that G11 speedies are not eligible for WP:REFUND, however. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you @Tamzin for your clarification. As you said that G11 Speedy deletions are not eligible for Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion hence please guide me to a solution to this issue. As you were the deleting administrator, will there be a slight possibility for you to restore the draft page and immediately remove such promotional content as you highlighted above so that the page complies with all sections of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I would really appreciate your help and guidance to a solution for this issue. Kic321 (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
        • @Kic321: thank you for clarifying you are not editing for pay. Do you have some sort of a relationship with Khalil Ahmed Khan? Pikavoom ^Talk 10:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
          • @Pikavoom No I do not have any direct relationship with the subject but rather I have been following his activities since I read about him being in UNESCO few months ago and I have been following traditional sport activities and news articles. When I joined Wikipedia, I thought this area was important to highlight in a big platform such as Wikipedia hence I decided to write my first article about him. I am aware about the Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest thus had I been directly related to Khan I would never have wasted my first article and effort for it to be deleted in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. If you could also guide me to the solution for this issue I will be grateful. Thank you. Kic321 (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
      • @Tamzin and @Pikavoom: I am looking forward for your response to a solution for this issue of speedy deletion. What will be the next step for me? I requested to overturn the deletion and remove the promotional content as highlighted by you if it is possible. As G11'd deletions cannot be challenged at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion hence I am trying to contact you as the deleting administrator to guide me about the possible solution. If the restoration is not possible, is it viable for me to create another new article on the subject and submit it for review? Kic321 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
        • @Kic321: Well I just took a crack at restoring it for you, and concluded that no, the amount of rewriting I would have to do would be excessive. It is through-and-through written as a puff piece for Khan, with several instances per paragraph of either promotional language or other puffery. Your options are:
          1. As noted above, if you can find another admin to review this who disagrees with my assessment, they're welcome to restore.
          2. As noted above, failing that, you can take the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review.
          3. To answer your question, yes, you may rewrite it, but please be much more careful this time to avoid promotional language, or it may be deleted again.
          4. Or you could write about something else. This is the one I'd recommend if you want to show you're not here to promote Khan.
        • -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)