Start a new discussion thread

User talk:Deepfriedokra/archives

i don't like you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram muhammed singh silva (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. Such harshness on short acquaintance. I'm sure once you get to know me better you will actually detest me. Somany people do. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(The above in my Joachim Steuben voice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Blocked. Take this as a compliment, DFO. – bradv🍁 16:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked. Cool thing is, I've no idea what they were on about. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on being a nicer person than I am. You got in with a block for 36 31 hours on Deborahannryanisgreat seconds before I was going to impose an indef block, hateful person that I am. JBW (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nicer part is debatable. Some people on this talk page seem to dislike me. At any rate, did not want to bitethenewbie. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice in the section above that someone wasn't altogether keen on you. And apparently someone else thought you didn't bite that person hard enough. JBW (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with most of the vandalism that comes my way. Shows I'm doing my job. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I don't have/won't ever have Magic Glasses to see past this illusion. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deepfriedokra, I would like to write the article about BrickLink, but can't due to the protection level (insufficient edits). It seems to be protected, because the company isn't relevant enough. However, I disagree with this since the website has over 1 million users and has been aquired by LEGO themselves.[1] There is also already a French and a Dutch article about the website. Best regards, Mikalagrand (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikalagrand: Sorry, no. Due to the amount of disruption and repeated deletions, a new page on this subject will need to be drafted via WP:AfC, reviewed by them, and approved by them. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've submitted the article for review. If you would like to read it, you can find it here. Mikalagrand (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikalagrand: Oh, I'm much to tough on notability and sourcing. Better to let the regular reviewers review it. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

Others also seem to be pretty harsh, the article didn't pass. Mikalagrand (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your "semi-retired" notice at the top of this page says you are "no longer very active on Wikipedia". I see that your edit counter says that your average rate of editing so far this year is higher than all but two of the other 14 years for which your account has existed, and that the two that are higher than this year are the most recent two past years. Are you quite sure that "no longer very active" is absolutely right? JBW (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: been trying to stop at 150 edits/week. Was up to ~3000/month for a while. I am a Wikiholic . . . Besides, I just put that up after the latest nastigram from an IP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my mom was really sick off and on from 2010 to 2014. After that, it was a while before I succumbed to the old, old longing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW:@Deepfriedokra:Can I join this dicussion as it will be good for my experience. I have multiple questions for you both please do not say "Go to Teahouse" I do not want to go there. Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello DFO! When you decline appeals on UTRS, I see that you often copy them over on-wiki as well. Is there a fancy tool or script to do that, or do you do that manually? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Don't I wish. And UTRS-bot is hors de combat. I copy the decline message, open the user talk from the ticket, paste the message, go back and get the URL. Busy, but it helps me keep track. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, Alas, as I feared. Well thanks for the input, guess I'll see about poking the maintainers of UTRS bot... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but I really can't remember why I forgot the talk-page message in 2010. I have lifted the editing restriction concerning their talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this diff. I considered ANI, but I also thought that asking an admin I had never knowingly interacted with before to take a look would be more useful. Even if the editor disagrees with the nomination that is, at best, an unusual manner of expression. Fiddle Faddle 07:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: What does that even mean? At the one level, it bears no weight in a deletion discussion. At the other, it's a personal attack. They have made some constructive edits. You might want the to clarify their meaning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification is perhaps arcane, and requires either knowledge or research. Santorum is a neologism created by Dan Savage to degrade Rick Santorum, quite successful it is way, though also revolting. Felching is taking that concept one step further. As an out gay man I interpret this as an anti-gay slur (I have a banner on my user page expressing my sexuality). Equally I may be being over sensitive. Yet the rational part of me counters the oversensitivity.

Had this been placed on my own talk page I would have commented, and left it present. In a deletion discussion I think it inappropriate for me either to comment or revert it. There I propose to let it stand unless anyone else chooses to disagree. I feel that any interaction with this editor by me would be... unwise.

Certainly, though, it has no relevance in a deletion discussion, which is about whether an article conforms to policy. Fiddle Faddle 07:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a slur it will go to ANI eventually. I did warn him about incivility. Think I'll d redact that. Has not yet been receptive to feedback. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tps, they're up to no good and that's beyond the pale. ——Serial ^# 07:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Thank you. I am content with whatever route you have chosen. You have done exactly as I hoped, which is used other eyes than mine on it. I'm old enough and ugly enough to shake slurs off. Others might not be so thick skinned. Fiddle Faddle 07:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legerrich (talk · contribs) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the signature here (click on the username and talk page link). My !vote (because I don't get a vote): save a couple kilobytes at ANI and indef the troll now. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YoLevivich Glug. Gah Gasp. Coffee! Acj! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: mangled ping who could blame me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)  Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks. Your hands must've still been shaking while trying to ping ;-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, folk, that was some interesting detective work. And such a polite block message! Fiddle Faddle 20:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right! I was thinking the same thing. DFO's one of the most polite admins. If I were an admin, my block notice would be like:

 Administrator note You have been judged and found lacking. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I feel like Sylvester Stallone descending on his jet-pack-- "You have been judged". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated a discussion at WPANI about revdels of edits related to the killing of George Floyd. You are one of the administrators who made revdels based on BLP, connected to that set of topics.

Were some of those revdels to protect the privacy of what I referred to as the NEW NAME in the WPANI discussion?

Anyhow, even though I didn't explicitly mention you, at WPANI, I am giving you a headsup of that discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded at Special:permalink/963962842#Teachable moments. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link to related discussion at ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Administrator changes Malcolmxl5 John • TheCoffee • Tim! Creffett → GeneralNotability DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes Bbb23 Interface administrator changes TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

Fair enough, I just think it's better to keep a record of the way in which people commit metaphorical online suicide. – PeeJay 20:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are the only one keeping score, and removing their little trophy changes nothing in so far as their block is concerned. As someone who enjoys trolling telephone solicitors, I can tell you how savory each response is. And each trophy --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by what User:Cabayi suggested with regard to User:Riku maina, since User:Goofdawg was adding content that was practically identical to that which Riku maina had been adding until recently. – PeeJay 15:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF sock is an opportunity for a user to explain themselves, before they get blocked. It's also a precursor to SPI. That canary is already out of the cage and in the cat's belly. Riku has not edited since 6/23. MIght be forth reporting at SPI. Might be too stale for a checkuser. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Mind blocking this user Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mind's been blocked for weeks. Oh.  Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you! Joeiseorioadi. (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Genuine Orthodox Church of America requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:FreshlyBakedPie is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for lifting the block.Clash Jester (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who's on first .... loved it. Not many would know that ref these days. Even being old enough, it took me a second to actually read the edit ... laughed my butt off. TY for that. :-) — Ched (talk)

Folks, I got a million of 'em. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deepfriedokra, I saw you deleted the edit summary for my UAA request. You might want to revdelete the edit summary and username for this edit, along with my edit summary here. Thanks in advance! -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuK3: Thanks, missed that in their contribs. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you took my mdorganics contributions out, then how do I add missing content that will benefit the user, since I am the president of my company and an authority on cbd oil, how is it a conflict to have my webpage as a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRoga (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little if any interest in what company representatives say about a subject. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Please read and heed WP:COI andWP:PAID --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That went as expected. Oh well, we’ll see what he says in his actual appeal, but yeah, doesn’t look like much has changed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He would not address the issues that led to his block in the UTRS appeal. He does not seem to want to look at those issues.Reacts badly to any mention for whatever reason. I link to ANI in unblock appeals to save others the trouble of looking. And boy, there's a lot to look through. He made no mention of the prior unblock conditions in the UTRS ticket. I sifted those out of that horrendous talk page. I will not respond to this reply or post further to his talk page as I don't want to provoke a further explosive rant. I do not think he will settle down and actually look at the reasons and take care of them. (two sighs) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I only just saw this, by accident. Nobody seems to have notified me during the discussion. Just want to say - if anyone feels I've changed your block unnecessarily, I'm sorry, but I treat every case on its merits, and I usually do the block myself if I'm the one who's deleted the article. It often seems to be the case that I delete an article, check out the user's other edits, block them, then go to inform the user only to find they have already been blocked by someone else. I suppose this must mean that other people do the block first and then delete the article. I'm not sure what everyone else was getting so worked up about. Deb (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on my SPAMU threshold due to some activism at WP:UAA where some admins have been declining reports I (and others) would have acted on. Interestingly, the activists have been declining and then another admin has been coming behind them and blocking anyway. There is a discrepancy between user name policy and blocking policy, and there seems to be some intractability involved. Not naming names 'cause I don't want to upset anyone who might have strong feelings on the disagreement. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Recently on a Zoom get-together, another admin mentioned an increase in spam during lockdown and I was not convinced at the time. However, within the last few weeks it seems to be rising very noticeably, so I'm tending to take a hard line. Deb (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deepfriedokra. 2 weeks ago today you responded to my ANI report regarding Jeremykuhl's repeated unsourced edits by leaving him a message on his talk page reminding him about the importance of referencing. Clearly the final warnings, report to ANI and personal requests from admin to refrain are not working. Besides the unsourced edits there is also the issue of zero communication from their side, something required to edit here. Please could I trouble you to take a look again. Robvanvee 10:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help Deepfriedokra. Robvanvee 11:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for dealing with Endeavor Greece! I have also seen your admin work around here, and I appreciate it. Thanks! Guitarist28 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. Look at his contributions.[3] BLP violations, etc. I don't think he's going to be anything but a pain and am tempted to block. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: COuldn't nail down a clear username violation, though I doubt will be constructive. ROPE til declares self. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, You unblocked this user per this UTRS ticket. Can you confirm that this ticket is actually related to the user in question? Thanks. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NahidSultan: Which user? There is something wrong with the old UTRS ticket links. They go to the wrong users. The person that UTRS ticket seems to relate to is still blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/30502 shows declined by @Kuru: --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apparently unblocked the user in question, but , as I say, there is something wrong with the UTRS database from that time. When I search by name, I get a legacy UTRS ticket from before. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. Judging by the block log and legacy UTRS ticket related to it, is it possible that the account was unblocked by mistake? ~ Nahid ^Talk 17:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably not --but as things sit, it's impossible for me to figure it out. I need to see the user's actual UTRS ticket. They'd have needed to make a pretty convincing argument, and I'd have sought feedback from blocking/reviewing admins. I see they edited sporadically after that, and then stopped. I'll look at I think it was Yamla's talk to see if that sheds any light. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC) This is very frustrating. I click on a UTRS link about one person and get someone else. I don't see a mention of this user on Yamla's page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem said it was ok in this thread. The UTRS link did not work-- again.

requests unblock on utrs. Has been editing constructively elsewhere. Has sworn off spam. Inclined to unblock. Consulting with blocking admins. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Hi User talk:Deepfriedokra. The above link does not work. However if you think they deserve some rope I have no objections. Just please emphasize to them that this is likely their last chance. They have a formidable block log. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NahidSultan: Is there problem I should know about? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:CentralAuth/ShahadatHossain looking at his global contribs, especially bn.wiki. I guess that persuaded me to ask Ad Orientem for permission to unblock. Wish I could see the ticket. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are taking place in multiple venues (e.x on bnwiki) about their cross-wiki COI/UPE using multiple accounts. Evidence is pretty much straightforward that is why we needed to know the circumstances about their unblock request. Thanks for looking into it. ~ Nahid ^Talk 12:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am unfamiliar on the complicated process and lengthy steps on reporting users to be blocked.

User:Mayor Vico Sotto appears to be impersonating Vico Sotto, mayor of Pasig. Additionally, another account User:The Great Honcho is similar to Mayor Vico Sotto account, as the account claims it is the official account of a certain figure, and both accounts occasionally edit two articles of two other politicians including Bong Go and Paolo Duterte as seen in their previous revisions. May I request you to kindly take the necessary actions as needed, if these accounts be blocked or not. Thank you.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I add account User:Daryl Ruiz, which seems to be a sockpuppet of the accounts above. Thanks.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user edited today, ignoring your previous warning about changing their name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG ABOUT MY USING MY TITLE! STOP HARASSING ME!

B. MY TEXTUAL CHANGES CORRECT MISINFORMATION! STOP UNDOING THEM, WHICH IS IGNORANT AND HARASSING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MEDICOLEGAL CONSULTANT (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

You received two warnings on your talk page that your username is not in compliance with our WP:Username policy, one form me and one from Deepfriedokra, who is an admin. In order to edit Wikipedia, your username must be in compliance. Please go to WP:CHU and request a change of name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for the thanks. On an unrelated note, I've always read your username as Deepfriedvodka. Do I win a fiver? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Yes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C wrote: "It's all good, Deepfriedokra." I feel that's redundant. This ol' boy knows that deep fried okra is always good, as long as you drain it a bit on some paper towels or something.

--Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At here and here Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick action on the threat message. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia safe. Zoodino (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, can I just check whether you meant to full protect Ajvar? It seems like the dispute was by IP/newly registered users - is there context for full protection? Best, Darren-M talk 00:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren-M:Thought that was the request at WP:RFPP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren-M: At least one participant looks extended confirmed, so would be unfair to SP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Could you take a look at Ajvar and see if we can get by w/o full protection? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, Thank you, makes sense. Can you check you're happy that this is a stable version though please? There are a number of errors present in the page that suggests an earlier version is possibly required. 3 obvious ones are detailed in an edit request here: Talk:Ajvar#Protected_edit_request_on_25_July_2020 Darren-M talk 01:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN ping re the above for your awareness if you're reviewing. Darren-M talk 01:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing the history now. Since Deepfriedokra has signed off for the night I may take action if I think it is warranted. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if the disruptive, nationalistic additions/removals and edit warring are all being done by IPs and new users. I do see some regular users there but they are trying to restore the longtime stable version, and I think they should be allowed to do so. I will reduce the protection to semi-protection and see if that allows the article to become stable. I will also post a note on the talk page. If the disruptive nationalism returns, OK to restore the full protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing: The full protection was only for a week, and I replaced it with semi-protection for a week. But we'll see if the warring resumes at the end of that time. It may be necessary to impose semi for a longer (possibly much longer) term. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of LeVar Burton, "Nych’all". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some edits to look at Special:Contributions/Hpx130. I think we might need to revdel. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you plese block user:74.70.77.106 ASAP. She clearly will not stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deepfriedokra! Thank you for your great work on wiki. I saw your comment on my block request about the negative BLP on Sandy Stimpson, and I was a bit curious about how to judge such a situation. In this case, I know that poorly referenced material on BLP pages should be removed immediately. I saw the IP users edit, checked whether the removed content was well-referenced, and decided that it was, which led me to reverting the removal. Clearly you don't agree, so I want to learn what to do better next time. What was wrong in my assumptions/reasoning? What did I miss? Looking forward to hearing from you, Pyrite Pro (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrite Pro: Thanks for your note. Negative BLP must be approached cautiously, even if sourced.. This content was not even about the subject. Once such content is challenged, it should not be restored without consensus. I know others are more open to negative BLP content than I. I will never willingly/knowingly protect such content, and if I am to err, it will be on the side of its removal. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you reverted edits by the IP that was spamming the Sandy Stimpson page (and saw the section above from another editor). Although I can see why outwardly this looks like a BLP issue, there was a deleted section on the talk page that explained the relevance to the article and why it was originally added. I agree the paragraph could be written better, but I do find it is relevant to the article as the subject responded as the Mayor of Mobile to the incident. This reference is broken on the talk page, but this is the updated URL: Alabama mayor Sandy Stimpson's statement on son's arrest for impersonating officer. I'll bring it up on the talk page to honor your edit comment, but am concerned about spam given the recent and ongoing vandalism on the page (which has impacted more than just this paragraph). Thanks for looking out! :) --Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 12:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC) '@Marx01: Content discussion should take place on article talk. If there is spam, please remove it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just wondering if you could take a look at 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. I left a request at the page protection page a while ago and users are still disagreeing on content. Likely will flare up in about half an hour as the next advisory gets issued. Noah^Talk 23:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Made me dizzy. Can't figure out what is what. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well... now he/she is maing threats. Noah^Talk 01:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: OMG! Get out!. I blocked indef 'cause unblocking did not work out (as you might have noticed). Dig this-- I was going to ask you to mentor/guide! Damn! Guess not. SMDH. Sorry for the trouble. I should have blocked indef from the start. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Darkwind protected the page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my issue... I was just coming here to report them for abusing their TPA to make threats against the original blocking admin, CycloneBiskit. Noah^Talk 10:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: ??I Thought I was the original blocking admin. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, so. Cb Reblocked after I {foolishly} unblocked.Then I indeffed as I should have done to begin with. I'm letting that mouthiness pass as post block bravado and immaturity. (You see a lot of the former and the latter is an extra bonus.) If they ever request unblock, that'll weigh against unblocking. I think if certain other users stay off their talk page, they'll settle down. The invite to try to mentor them is still open, if you think you can. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...Could I please ask you to rename User talk:ChangeNOW Summit? The have indicated the new username in their unblock request Chelmi22). Salvio 16:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Whenever I rename someone, I want to solemnly intone, "It is done!" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I:'d go for "henceforth you shall be known as...", myself. Anyway, Thank you. See you around. Salvio 16:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[4] EEng 05:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edit reverted on a page which was then semi-protected due to "vandalism"? I'm not vandalising, I'm simply trying to tell the truth. --Mazydinner (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." The content you removed was. The content you added is nationalistic posturing. Please stop. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this has WP:DENY written all over it. El_C 03:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mazydinner: Also, yours was not the only edit that was disruptive. There were edits from users who were not logged in. Looks like an orchestrated campaign. Please be careful, you've gotten off on the wrong foot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I think if we expect new users to follow our rules we must teach them and WP:AGF. @Mazydinner:, we won't have anymore WP:NOTHERE behavior from you, will we?~

Sorry, but I think you are on the wrong end of WP:PACT. Oh well. El_C 03:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Well if she persists and I'm not around to show her the door, I'm sure there's already a line of the willing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

???? I am confused, but I'm sorry for making edits without liking proper sources. I need to do my research and make sure I'm making correct edits. Mazydinner (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide denial is when Turks and other groups come to tell the truth he Armenians don't want to hear, the fact that The Armenian genocide is simply not true. Sure, sure. El_C 03:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Turkish so that's really what I was told all of my life. I'm sorry, In the future I'll try to AVOID editing articles I may have bias about. Mazydinner (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

What did I call that? TBH, "claptrap" is apt. Oh, yes--"nationalistic posturing". We've seen this all before. We'll see it again. I should geolocate those IP's. Might be interesting. OK, Turkish nationalistic claptrap. That's Turkey's standard line. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to do anything wrong.... also isn't Wikipedia blocked in Turkey? Again I apologize. Mazydinner (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mazydinner: Almost forgot, Armenian Genocide denial and anything pertaining to the Armenian Genocide are not good places for a new editor to start. There are complex issues surrounding it, and, as you have seen, it is easy to stumble into problems related to the complexities. You might wish to learn Wikipedia by editing other areas as well as reading and rereading the linked pages from your welcome The tutorial may be useful as well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned here that demanding to know someone's caste is so inappropriate a question that I cannot begin to explain. I don't know a ton about the caste system and the rules surrounding it (other than "drop GS/Caste notices on anyone who is changing them and block if needed"), what makes that a super-inappropriate question? I can tell from context that it's not exactly a friendly inquiry. (And yes, I realize that you said you can't begin to explain - but I'm asking nicely anyway :)) GeneralNotability (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's rude. even more, it's like racist. In the context, even more so. It's trying to discount their point of view based on caste, so it's also a personal attack. And incivil. I know what to compare it to-- this revdel'd dismissal of an editor's opinion based on race I don't know much about caste either, and I might be wrong, but from what I've learned watching Sitush's talk page, that's all I got.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: forgot to ping. Watching Jeopardy. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All righty then, that all makes sense. Thank you! GeneralNotability (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Been busy this week. I'll try to stay away today and will possibly resume Sat night while I'm at work. May or may not answer before Tuesday. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

It was brought to my attention that I had previously returned this article to a redirect and protected (my talk page for info, and redirect's history for gory detail). I have done it again, and a ping as you have protected it at one point. I have directed the primary contributor to create a draft article. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: ^^^ FYI — billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorrym I'm at work and stealing a moment here and there for this. I can't look right now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was concerned that you may need some assistance in location the news articles mentioned in the discussion on Talk:Jenny Durkan. So I am compiling detailed instructions:

1) Get access to a computer, cellular telephone or other device with access to the world wide web.

2) Turn the computer, cellular phone or device on by locating the on button and press down on it.

3) Wait for the computer, cellular telephone or devise to full turn on. If a login is required, use the alphanumerical keypad to enter in your password where the password is blank.

4) Once you have full access to the computer, cellular telephone or devise, locate the icon that will give you full access to the world wide web (internet). This icon may be called Safari, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc. Or it may simply be a blank white bar with the google logo near it.

5) Once you are "logged in" to the world wide web, find the url bar. In this bar type in "https://www.newsbank.com/" . This will take you to the News Bank website.

6) On the webpage you will see a tab that says "Log in through your library". Click on that link.

7) You will now see a new webpage. Click on the green tab that says "Login to NewsBank Resources"

8) A login username and password will appear. If you have access to NewsBank in this manner, type in your username and password and skip ahead to step number 13. If you cannot, go to step number 9.

9) Go to the website of your local library. For example https://www.spl.org/ (which is the example being used here).

10) Click on the "Online Resources" tab, which will produce a drop down menu. In that menu click on "Newspapers and Magazines".

11) Scroll down to the "Seattle Times (1895-current)" tab and click on it.

12) A new webpage will appear with login username and password prompts. Use your own personal library card and pin number to log in, but do not share those numbers with anyone.

13) You now have access to News Bank. A white bar will appear in the middle of the screen. Click on it and type in whatever you would like to read, then click "Search". For example the name of an article "Opening accounts clash at trial of police officer" or the name of the journalist "Diane Brooks" or perhaps "Robert Eric Whidbey".

14)Read the article. Then repeat the process from step 13 for all of the other articles.

15) Go to "Talk:Jenny Durkan" and share what you have discovered.

I hope that these instructions are thorough and helpful. Please share with Usertalk:Drmies since I do not have access. And don't forget Wikipedia:Wikipedia should be fun. Cheers.--174.21.174.34 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I really have no interest in that page. You should discuss wit people that edit the thing on the talk page. Also, this formatting is almost impossible for me to read. But thanks for the thought. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no. If I edit the article then I become WP:INVOLVED. My only concern was to stop the disruption caused by adding back of challenged content in a BLP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the IP is completely missing the point. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate content disputes. I generally just don't care unless it's challenged negative BLP content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably continue this on Talk:Jenny Durkan, but I do not understand. You made very bold statements about the content in the article being fabricated, yet you refuse to verify your own statements. Wait, are you...are you....psychic after all. Oh god, stay far away from that memory about the Saint Bernard when I was 22. I was drunk, don't look at it.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyes. Posted requests to various WikiProjects. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. And when the section is found to have zero fabrications or lies, will you apologize?--174.21.179.79 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC) You're guaranteed to get a shiny new barnstar if you do apologize. And I mean that.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do so apologise. Thank you for your patience and the great efforts you have made to clarify all of this. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2020 (UT)

PS. There has been another development that will help in your discussion of that page, One that may evoke a number of emotions. Wikipedia should be fun to play. But someone was got caught cheating and won't bother you anymore. PS Wikipedia has no sense of humor which we are aware of. --{Men In Black) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good god things can get nerdy around here. Alright. I'm way too tired tonight, but my intentions are to ask one more time what the specific objections to reinstating the deleted content are and attempt to get consensus on the articles Talk Page. I also plan to reinstate the other recently deleted content. I may eventually go back to the Martin Durkan article and continue expanding it, but not right now. I also have a plan to create a page about a local Seattle-area homeless advocacy organizations which, all cards on the table, will both be fully sourced as always and, yes, may be seen as critical of certain businesses, politicians, etc who attempted to prevent this organization from doing their work in the mid-1990s. Just being upfront.

Also, a woman bursts into her home in a frenzy of excitement and says to her husband "Honey, you will never believe it. Pack your bags, I just won the lottery for $100 million." And the husband says "Oh my god, I don't believe it. But why am I packing my bags? Where are we going?" And the wife says "I don't care where you go, just pack your bags and get out of here."--174.21.179.79 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I posted requests on all the wikiprojects and got no input at all. That's the sad state of Wikipedia. Time frame-- you risk reversion if you do not have a consensus to add back. If no one responds from the WP's, you might ask at WP:BLPN, providing a brief precis supported by dif's and reasons based on policies. I would not include that content back, if for no other reason, than the reasons mentioned here. I have no interest in the page. I stated my opinions, and then detached. It might interest you to know that your nemesis on that page has been Judge Dredded for what I consider a heinous offence. One of the top five, if anyone is making a list. Glad to hear back from you. I was starting to wonder. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: out of curiosity, can IP bans on wikipedia be detected by internet providers in some way? Causing some sort of bot to automatically change the address? I'm a cultural nerd, not a tech nerd so I honestly don't know.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(chuckle) I wouldn't be surprised. However, WP:BEANS applies. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could the death of Wilford Brimley have something to do with it? I've always had a gut feeling that he was the keeper of the light, so I fear that now that he's gone we may fall into a dark time in history.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sad news, that. sic transit gloria mundi. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I lost my virginity to Wilford Brimley. At least he said he was Wilford Brimley. Huh. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure Wilford Brimley would have had $20 to his name and would not have dined and dashed. Hmmm. Food for thought. Not trying to dox myself here, of course.--174.21.179.79 (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deepfriedokra, i ask you a help. I saw that few days ago you, correctly, have protected the wiki page of Jack Buckby and removed the word Far-right. So there are a few idiots ( i think not impartial but politically ideologized) who continue to add far-right in the page of Jack Buckby. i tried to explain them that Jack Buckby is not anymore involved in far-right and also that he wrote a book to explain this, but it seems that these ideologized need to have an enemy and need to call Buckby extremist even if he is not. I ask you, if is possible, to re-protect the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.96.241 (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but. Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please revoke talk page access on User talk:MarterialScientist. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already globally locked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I've been trying all day to get someone to look at the disruptive user making unsourced claims at Bengali–Assamese script, while pushing a narrative, repeatedly undoing the reversals of his unsourced claims. This user undid our reverts 6 times and ignores all warnings given to him. My report isn't being processed for some reason and I've been busy with this for hours while the user can undo my revert in 0.1 second. Thanks. Glennznl (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, thanks for your recent comments in the ANI I filed. It's closed now, but if I may be so bold, would you please delete the first copy of your "shock monkey" remark? It somehow appears in the middle of the OP (first collapsed bubble). The original diff is here This only matters, a little, in event the case somehow gets reviewed by the ARBS or the community, perhaps in an appeal or unblock request from RTG, and if that happens, your attention to this detail will make for a cleaner read by the reviewers. My apologies for taking time on what is probably a trivial detail for the archives only. Have a great day! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: As monkey shock visitors, comment relevant to thread. As thread now closed, may be best to not alter. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could use WP:REDACT if you're truly worried about that. In the future, per WP:TPG and Help:Talk_pages#Replying_to_an_existing_thread, please do not embed your own comments in the middle of other people's comments. Instead, add and indent below their closing signature. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You set some standards that I should follow, after outlining the conditions for my reprieve from being blocked, and it has been 6 months since then, the time you set for my evaluation, I kindly ask a review of the said evaluation and that may I request some further notes and tips on what I should and should not do. Thank You.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rene_Bascos_Sarabia_Jr.#unblock_discussion

--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen:Hello. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: I see good progress and receptiveness of feedback, but also a few lapses. Awaiting Bish, but I think we may need to continue at east some of the conditions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, young Fritter. I'm looking at the conditions we/you set for Rene to be unblocked here: article creation via AfC; no copy pastes (meaning, I presume, no copyright violations, and no copy-pasted references from other articles without first checking if they're useful to the article being edited?); 0RR; zero tolerance on incivility; zero tolerance on making edits not supported by the source; no image uploads; no stilted/POV language; be careful to indent properly. I'm actually quite concerned by the warnings he's been getting on his page about unsourced edits and unreliable sources throughout these six months, especially here. For a content contributor such as Rene, the sourcing issue is just so central. I think we could remove the other conditions, but, Rene, it's very worrying that you're still having so much difficulty with sourcing. If I see further well-grounded complaints about it, I think we should restore the indefinite block. Of course using reliable sources isn't merely one of your unblock conditions, it's basic on Wikipedia for all contributors. I'm pinging Chipmunkdavis, who has posted repeatedly on your page, and also Doug Weller, to see if they have any comment.

But apart from the important sourcing issue, I think we could remove the other specific conditions. Though I should ask DeepFried: what was the problem with image uploads? Does that condition need to be kept in place? Bishonen | tålk 20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: 1) Agreed. 2) There were copyvio's, but I do not recall how recently. TBH, I don't upload images I did not shoot myself. It's too easy to get the rationale wrong for fair use or whatever. We might want to keep a restriction on images not shot with user's own camera in his own hands. Looking forward to more input. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question though, what about graphics designed from me by scratch and images wherein I have written consent from the author that allow me to use them in Wikipedia? An author and historian tasked me to use pictures from her book and also design some graphics for her. Is it ok for me to upload pictures from her book and design graphics from scratch? Here's our email conversation.

https://i.imgur.com/u3bT6h1.png ----Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the author has to explicitly release the images under a free licence, which means they can be used and adapted by anyone (not just Wikipedia) for any purpose with no prior consent so long as attribution is given. This is laid out at Wikipedia:Image use policy. CMD (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, do not post someone else's email online. I suggest you delete that imgur picture. There is a specific process for forwarding author consent on commons if that become necessary. CMD (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry I edited out the emails from the picture now, only our conversation remained.---Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not around for the block and unblock discussions, but from my reading most of the conditions are extrapolations from policy that would apply to normal editing anyway. In terms of evaluation, the issues I have raised on Rene's talkpage have related to "Absolutely no copy pastes" and "Zero tolerance on making edits not supported by the source". I would say however that I have had no issues regarding the two conditions mentioning civility. CMD (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As CMD says, "Absolutely no copy pastes" and "Zero tolerance on making edits not supported by the source" - both conditions have been violated, and I have no confidence in this editor being able to follow the last one. I hadn't noticed the earlier block and unblock. The indefinite block should be restored. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have only violated it unconsciously since I used a previous version of a page to reinsert the sources from a previous version thinking the source was still valid. Likewise, the article talk page mentioned previously that wherein users said that its not supported by the source, concerning that, is actually a verbatim quotation from a book that I suddenly lost access to, hence didn't write attribution, due to COVID-19 closing down my local library and out of the 8 conditions I was tasked to fulfill I fulfilled 6 out of 8.

1. And out of the Any article creation via AfC. <----- Fufilled

2. Absolutely no copy pastes. <----- (Backtracked because I used sources from an older version of an article)

3. 0RR-- if you are reverted, you must not revert in turn and you must immediately discuss the matter in a civil manner. <----- Fulfilled

4. Zero tolerance on incivility. Please do not accuse other editors of stalking you, of not acting in in good faith| in reverting you or disagreeing with you, <----- Fulfilled

5. Zero tolerance on making edits not supported by the source. <---- (Backtracked because COVID closed our library and prevented me from attributing)

6. No image uploads-- none. <---- Fullfilled

7. No stilted language/non NPOV e.g. "that arose to fight for justice against the genocidal Mongols" or "Added damming evidence against Mayweather.".<----Fulfilled

8. When replying in a discussion, please be careful to indent properly. <---- Fulfilled

I think 6/8 is a passing grade, and anyway, if there are serious problems with me, you can always talk to me about it or bring the issue to arbitration.---Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. My greatest concern is if there has been the inclusion of material copyrighted elsewhere. I thought I was quite clear on that point. And this is not a pass-fail exam with a low pass bar. Fail is anything below 100%. So, I cannot see removing the restriction at this time. With an admonition to seek full compliance as a requirement for removal of restrictions. I note Doug Weller is Condition 0 on the block button. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite alarmed about Rene's comment about "a passing grade". Is it meant as a joke, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.? If all eight points were of equal weight, it might be a "passing grade", but the sourcing issues are much, much more important than, say, indentation. Do you really not see that? From yourself, one would hope, but if not, do you still not see it from my comment above, where I say "the sourcing issue is just so central"... "the important sourcing issue", and so on. I must say I'm worried about your Wikipedian competence, both from this particular comment, and from the sourcing problems you've been displaying during these probationary six months. You seem to take all this quite lightly — "if there are serious problems with me, you can always talk to me about it"..? There are serious problems, and that's why you were blocked. The problems seem to persist. You don't know what arbitration is for — that's OK, I'm sure many users don't know that. It's not for this kind of thing, though. This is an admin thing, and several admins are trying to decide it. DeepFried, I'm inclined to agree with Doug Weller about reinstating the indefinite block. Unless you think we should return to AN for another round there? Bishonen | tålk 14:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I increasing feel frustration with the drama boards. If Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr wants to try his luck there, OK, sure. My actions are imminently reviewable. Actually, with 2 admins condition 0 and condition 1 on the block button, and the third shrugging, it might be his best bet. However from my experience. recidivists do not do well in appealing conditions they have been violating. More dramaz to litte purpose. tschau. I have a 'possum to persuade. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't been recedivicing, my main original block was due mostly to synthesis and original content, that has not happened ever since. Notice that this time, the main issue is about attribution, not synthesis and original research.---Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm amendable for an extension of my probation, it seems I haven't learned my lesson enough. This time, there will be no more sourcing issues and that will be permanent from thence on.----Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this. Mind telling me what it means?Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Synoman Barris: Salus populi suprema lex esto --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, Now I get it. Thanks! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know I call you Fritter, but that's really a term of affection. Some people call you deeofrieddorka.[5] Bishonen | tålk 12:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Welp, that's better than deepfriedpakora . And, my dear Bish, TBH, if I am "young" to you-- oh, my! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i see that sock has been washed, dried, neatly rolled, and put back in its drawer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the plumber refuses to fix the plumbing problem till I fix the opossum problem. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update. There is no opossum, only Zuul! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on that. Yikes. You must have very refreshing outdoors outside your house. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was autoblocked just now while editing because my IP address was recently used by "SATGURU MAHARAJ JI".

I have no idea about this. I am been blocked for something I did not do.

I have been editing for years and have never shared my device with anyone.

Please look into it and unblock me. Livingstone Imonitie (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Livingstone Imonitie: Well, obviously you are not blocked as you edited here. Sometimes internet providers share and reuse IP's. My cellphone's IP is currently blocked.The block I placed on SATGURU MAHARAJ JI does not affect other logged in users. It does prevent editing by the IP and it prevents account creation. Sorry for any inconvenience if you were attempting to edit not logged in. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I was blocked on my first account named User:Vanished user 12345678 on uploading File:Hamza Ali Abbasi.jpg from bad Flickr account which I did not know that the account was blacklisted and I found that image as free licensed. I was blocken mistakenly on changing my username after that. I did not know even a single thing about Amir Khan who he is and where he came from. I changed my username to leave Wikipedia before uploading that file but I changed my decision. I am taking a faithful oath and promise that I will do not do like this again mistakenly. If you feel any misuse again feel free to block me again but please I am tired of trying again and again on appealing my block on utrs. I also admit that both accounts are mine and I want to made my this account as my alternative one. Thanking you in anticipation. Sir please please as I mentioned I will assure all my efforts to make constructive edits and as I mentioned if you feel any misuse you can block me again. You can view my contributions on wikimedia commons as my second account is not blocked there. And I will also assure my commitment that I am using both accounts thanking you again. If I was not a faithful editor I did not contact any admin. And I assure again that I will not harm Wikipedia policies again.Renamed user 3298724928 (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to run this by you. The edit I rev-del'd was pretty heinous, but it also was well over a year ago. Not sure about a block, as not all of their edits are poor either, though they can be contentious. Saw you commented, what's your thoughts? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:@RickinBaltimore:I would like to hear back from them. If they've been editing constructively since that (only warning worthy) edit, then we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they just had a bad day. Maybe real life torqued them off beyond tolerances. TBH, I'd have discussed with them before starting an ANI thread. The vandal warning they received is wholly inappropriate. This was obviously a good faith edit based on personal knowledge/opinion. So an explanation as to why the edit was (putatively) incorrect should have been offered. It looks like they make a lot of opinion based edits and their tone is a bit strident. These may or may not be educable edits, but it is best to explain why an edit is wrong rather than offering (high-handed) threats. @Salwiki84:, would like to hear back from you, but it looks like you go some time between edits. I think can leave some education on their talk page, ask them to contact one of us about it all, and close the thread as "response pending". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was writing about this new cuisine discovered in Copenhagen and you happened to delete my page almost instantly - why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicthai (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magicthai, erm because you created it as a Template. Please read Help:Template. Please slow down and take your time to understand the project. Glen (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magicthai, additionally it was purely promotional. Even in draft or article space it would've been deleted. I'll add some info to your talk page. Glen (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

@Magicthai: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia, the world's largest free-content encyclopedia. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, subjects must me notability requirements like WP:GNG. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking.". Another problem with Template:Atlantian cuisine is that it was created in WP:TEMPLATE space. Please use the WP:AFC process for further article creation. As noted above, the page was unambiguously promotional. Please see User:deepfriedokra/g11 for my usual deletion message for G11. (Not sure why I left that template before. It was the wrong one.) Hope this helps. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to create a page about 1 Million Women, but it was rejectedause it wasn't an original article.

Could I ask for a Wikipedian to create one for me and 1 for other women around the world?

https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toni Massari (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toni Massari: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia, the world's largest free content encyclopedia.. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must meet notability requirements such as WP:GNG and WP:CORP.. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Please use the WP:AfC process to create an article if the subject meets notability requirements and if there is significant coverage in reliable sources. The web pages of subjects cannot generally be used to source encyclopedia articles as they are not independent of the subject. Alternatively, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Hope this helps --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deepfriedokra, thank you for cleaning the article Icon Commerce College. I saw the article and found that the almost the entire text was copy pasted from the college's website, so i had proposed for its speedy deletion. --Rook6 ^{Let's Talk} 07:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC) friedokra]] (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to punt me over to RFPP but I wanted to get your opinion on this. At Motu Patlu there are a high number of IP edits that are difficult to tell if they are constructive or not. One editor has been doing well of keeping plot point nonsense out, but I wonder if a good long period semi-protection would be more appropriate? Virtually all IP edits have been crufty and overwhelming to pending changes patrollers (I know, I've been getting sick of the same ol' cruft). Thanks, and again I will hit RFPP if you would prefer that venue. Best regards, Jip Orlando (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much obliged. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am User:Lazy-restless, my UTRS has been banned, what I have to do to make a request? rmv self outing 17:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, as you have never addressed the reason for your block and have now evaded your block. Try back 6 months from today. And, please, address the reasons for your block, O.K.? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello D. After taking a brief nap on the lovely chaise lounge :-) I would ask you to take a look at the last two edits on DJJ's talk page. Are they eligible for RD? I know I wouldn't want them in the history if they had happened on my page but I also know that I don't know all the ins and outs of R/D. I'm hoping it stops but I will file a WP:RFPP if it doesn't. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Malcolmxl5 zapped them. Best regards and have a nice week. MarnetteD|Talk 01:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[6]? EEng 19:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DFO, I recently made a request for this page to be protected but it isn’t. A lot of IP editors have been changing information on the article until I cant determine which is the last good (since I also don’t have knowledge of the subject). Can you please address this issue. Best regards ( this time I won’t include the word “mind”) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deepfriedokra,

Thanks for welcoming me, I try to be neutral as possible and help Wikipedia on topics I have the right information of. MixedButHumann is not my account nor do I cooperate with him.H0llande (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Skiyomi is asking for their UTRS ban to be removed here. I'm not a sysop so I thought I probably should ask one before closing it. Do you (or any other UTRS tooladmins) want to take any action or should I just close that issue? – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 05:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC

@Majavah: Can you see why she was globally blocked? Can you see her block log? Close and block from Github if you can. If you don't, well, I tried to warn you. She lost UTRS because she kept doing the same things with new socks and then would make another ineffectual appeal at UTRS. Many times via many accounts. This may be what prompted this latest request. Her last comment was Skiyomi 2020-07-16 00:39:31 But now that I think about it, I guess maybe I should wait a bit longer before trying to get my block lifted. I'll try again in a few months (like in November).. Further socking pushed the date out to January. Allowing her access to UTRS in January is overly generous. If she has socked further, then it pushes it out further still. She appealed to ArbCom. Did not work out. Check user found she socked in July, and she knows she cannot appeal before January.
I think you can see her block log, which does not actually come close to describing the problem. She's had five declines on UTRS as this user name. That does not count the other user names she has used to appeal at UTRS.

Didn't know was Github was for appealing blocks. Thought it was for technical issues. In the future, you should probably ignore requests like ths. We don't deny talk page access without strong reasons, and we don't block UTRS access without strong reasons. She was blocked to stop her disruptive appeals, and here we are again. She says the same thing here that she says in all her appeals, without actually addressing the posting of pornograhy under this account and her sock accounts. I really want to edit Wikipedia again? I'll bet. Some of what she got blocked for was revdel'd or oversighted. It was that bad. Thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything on UTRS and Amanda isn't available, that's why I asked you about this. Didn't know was Github was for appealing blocks [...] In the future, you should probably ignore requests like ths It really shouldn't, I just don't want to do policy decisions as a non-sysop, who knows what is controversial and what isn't. Ignoring everything in the future sounds like a plan, thanks. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 07:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Majavah: Sorry Skiyomi put you though this. She sounds so sincere. And it feels like she's gazing up at me and batting her eyes. (shudder) She's really quite determined you know. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Majavah: Just tell her/them (there will be more) that it's beyond your remit and direct them to Special:EmailUser/Arbitration_Committee. Give the ARBs something tl do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

addendum Just got an email from someone purporting to be she, Supports my theory above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is regrading the page of Dooley Car Rentals. Would you mind me telling what was the promotional content there. there was nothing promotional. Please help me and tell me what wrong with that page.

@Gaurav0853: The whole thing reads like ad copy. Phrases like " stretches across Ireland," "celebrating 20 years of operation," and " announced that they would be taking over " stand out. Please feel free to appeal at WP:DRV. Perhaps they will decide to restore it. The first paragraph might be salvageable. The iteration I deleted was an improvement over the one deleted by Jimfbleak. Courtesy ping Praxidicae Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will strongly oppose any attempts to overturn this at AFD. It's pretty clear we're being duped by a paid editor. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: LOL. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who you calling annoying? I prefer to think of myself as a constructively motivating irritation. EEng 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: And you do it so well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Like sands under an oyster's shell. . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a moment there I thought you was gonna say "... under someone's bathing suit." EEng 03:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stealing this line the next time someone complains about me running my mouth during meetings. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a story about my early career as an irritant. When I was in high school there was a lot of controversy about local school matters, and I frequently spoke at school board meetings. One evening I gave a presentaiton (in the form of a parable an allegory, as I recall) that must have really got under the skin of one of the members of the board, because when I was done he said something to me that you would not normally expect to hear an elected official say to a young person in public. I responded with the grace and aplomb that my esteemed fellow editors here at the English Wikipedia have so come to expect from me, and after a further vigorous exchange of views the chair stepped in to impose a cease-fire. The next day's headline was, "Lively Schools Meeting" with the subhead "But no erasers thrown".

Some days afterward my high school principal (who, I'll just mention in passing, kept a tarantula in his office named Harriet) told me that the superintendent and one of the assistant superintendents had called to ask if he could influence me to be "less vocal" at board meetings. "I told them (a) I don't want him to be less vocal; (b) I couldn't get him to be less vocal even if I wanted to; and (c) he's smarter than both of you put together so if you'd shut up and listen you might learn something." The board did eventually adopt the resolution I had been pushing and that particular member of the board later wrote me an absolutely ripping college recommendation, so you see everyone comes around eventually – it's just a matter of time. EEng 03:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, what was the resolution for? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A resolution on budget priorities. Plenty of people had similar ideas but I forced the issue into the debate with my patented out-of-the-mouths-of-babes shtick. I remember one board member saying, "Pandora's box has just been opened." EEng 10:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complement of the day to you.i hope you are doing your best to stay safe ? i write in response to a speedy deletion tag you placed on Albanny Technologies i wish to kindly inform you that the deletion has been contested with valid reasons.please kindly check and remove the Tag. Thanks in anticipation (Kingpery (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Kingpery: I think it would be better for the reviewing admin to look. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingpery: I see more promotional content than I left it with, but no assertion of significance. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: i will really appreciate if you can learn your voice by way of editing to root out any content that is deemed promotional.Kingpery (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already removed the promocruft once. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The draft-Kerala Blockchain Academy has been deleted under G11 criteria, however, this is an educational institution set up under the Government of Kerala under the Indian Institute of Information Technology and Management. Could you please help in drafting it in the right manner if am wrong at any place. I Am unable to find the mistake in the draft. According to my perspective, the article is drafted in a neutral tone with reliable citations from newspapers and websites. It would be great to know what should be improved and whether I can start afresh edition on the draft.--Itzanju (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Itzanju: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia, the world's largest encyclopedia. Please read the material linked in the deletion notice I left on your talk page. That should help you recognize your promotionality. If you have been trained or experienced in writing ad copy, it can be hard to unlearn writing in that manner and to learn how to write in a manner suitable to an encyclopedia. Please also follow the links in the welcome I left you. The new user tutorial can help you avoid future problems. For more detailed guidance, you could ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE or the Articles for creation help desk. In so far as creating new articles is concerned, it can be harder than one expects. You might want to gain more experience improving existing articles.Wikipedia:Community portal has links to articles that need improvement. Cheers, and happy editing, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The lazy admin's sleep buster
	What do you mean "And now, back to bed?" The AfD backlog won't clear itself, you know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lady fingers through my hair
• Clutching, stroking, caressing
• A depth of which I hardly dare
• Frying, spying, lying
• Esculentus a word I do not spare
• Pronouncing, announcing, delousing
• Allopolyploid orphan, I do care
• Adopting, prelopting, spelunking
• Mere folly, since I already got what I wanted
• Why swing, when I won when I bunted.

• Never shallow in your frying
• The seductive fragrance of linoleic acid
• Growth perennial, always there
• Our love is far from flaccid
• Alas verticillium wilt
• Has made our tower tilt
• The sound of boots marching leaves my mouth dry

Hello sir, you made an mistake. I was adding some information the Raleigh, Memphis article until you removed it. Luckily, i re added the information i put on there. But dont worry everyone makes mistakes. God is the only one that never made a mistake, Amen21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Hi Deepfriedokra Richard Raleigh here again. Can i block other users if they using disruption towards wikipedia. I read the blocking policy. Richard Raleigh (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Richard Raleigh, only administrators can block users. If a user is exclusively committing vandalism (though make sure to review what is and isn't vandalism), you can report them to the administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. Otherwise, if a user is persistently disruptive, you can report them to the administrator incidents noticeboard, but you first need to actually talk to the disruptive editor and try to discuss the problem. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Raleigh: And even admins cannot block editors with whom they are in an editing dispute, or are making edits they don't like. You need to seek WP:dispute resolution and WP:consensus. And remember, to other users, you might be the one who appears disruptive. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i will read it and i will ask you more advise. I love to see admins help other users with things they dont know about once they are new to wikipedia. Richard Raleigh (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a real mess. The appellant has now been blocked as a sockpuppet, and another editor popped up, and I requested CheckUser on them (which wasn't easy, because their name can't be typed* and has to be copy-pasted). I got a comment from an SPI clerk that there is cross-wiki abuse, and there are 160 confirmed sockpuppets. Well, we know how the DRV is going to turn out. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sock farm set on a hill cannot be hidden. So, I say let that little light shine-- shine on like a crazy diamond. But then, it may Blister in the Sun, though I don't even know why. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I am sure that the software exists to permit the keyboard mapping to be switched electronically so that the keyboard will type in Arabic rather than in the Latin alphabet, since the Arabic alphabet has about the same number of letters as the Latin alphabet. I don't plan to try. Anything that can't be typed as it is can be copy-pasted, including names of disrupters. Thank you for blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

trying to remember pre wikipedia existence. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deep Fried Okra! I just wanted to apologize for the misinterpreted edits I made and having a username which was against policy. While this issue is long behind us, I thought it wouldn’t be too late to issue a formal apology. Happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lima Bean Farmer: No problem Glad thingss worked out. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have chosen to ban myself from this website indefinitely due to an indiscretion that I made. The mistake was completely unintentional and not malevolent, but it doesn't seem like it was taken that way, and people's feelings seemed to have been hurt, so I will no longer edit. I completely misread the names of and mixed up two people that I shouldn't have. Before I do leave, I'd like for my name to be changed and my account to thereafter be vanished, please. I put in a request, but it's been a week since. Is there any way for you or another administrator to manually get this done or to look over my request? Factfanatic1 (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, y'all. This has been most unfortunate for both the creator and the subject. I too need to reach out to her. And the underlying cause is not the overzealousness of one user. This is a systemic problem in that there is no or little editorial overwatch on negative BLP content. That such erroneous coverage entered the main space before it was caught is not acceptable. ArbCom is busy right now, but this is just one glaring example of which we happen to be aware, of a problem long in need of remedy. It's the responsibility of the Community to fix this problem, and it will take an ArbCom case to try to fix it. WMF is ultimately accountable, despite its disclaimers, but we are collectively responsible. This sort of reckless defamation must not happen again. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • I didn't see this article or know about its deletion till I came across the article in the Seattle Times. Correct me if I am wrong, but what Factfanatic did seems to be a classic case of WP:SYNTH.
  • SYNTH is a major problem around WP. It isn't necessarily being done by young editors or ones with just a few edits around here, but by long established editors like here[7]. In some cases I've had to fight tooth and nail to get this stuff out of articles, check the recent edit histories of Bobby Floyd and 1959 Open Championship to see what I mean. Too many editors put something in a article[8] with a inline citation doesn't verify it. Tell me where in this article[9] does it mention the 1975 US golf Open at Medinah? In a thread that can be found here[10], Editor Ahunt wrote 'It is common to misquote refs or just mis-type info from refs, less common to intentionally put in a ref that doesn't support the text added at all, but it does happen often enough to watch out for it.' Golfer who was once hit by lightning at a Chicago area golf tournamet makes a funny quote= Quote comes from another Chicago golf area golf tournament where the player encountered lightning. Sounds like SYNTH to me and the editor responsible has made over 200,000 WP edits. Don't get me started on editors who push an article successfully to Good article status when it had bogus information in it and editors who tried to combat it were beaten down. Check the edit history of Crossair Flight 498 to see what I mean.

A couple other of quicky comments. The log for Naomi Ishisaka says the article was reviewed. That article got through review says our review process is a joke. Almost as bad as this debacle, was what I found[11] in an aviation accident eight years ago. There has to be more of this defamation and how much is sitting behind inline citations and backed by experienced editors willing to fight to keep it articles?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: Thanks. All good points, and this is just the-one-I-heard-about. There are more. This is a systemic problem, not just one overzealous editor and a not thorough enough reviewer. I don't know what it will take to fix it. I know it has been inadequately addressed recurrently. WP:BLPN is overloaded. I take it Signpost is writing about this instance. ArbCom is busy right now, but they might grip this bull by the horns once they are finished. Or not. Looks like you have plenty of information for an ArbCom filing. And dammit, that kid's recklessness should have been caught before he defamed someone and destroyed his own WIki-career. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the opposite end of the spectrum, we have this debacle. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's another mess for sure.

Another article with BLP problems and an experienced editor not getting it took place at Missy Gold just recently. Inline citations were being used to identify her as a psychiatrist with a different name who was practicing in Northern California. While the IC say Gold became a psychiatrist, neither IC said Gold is the psychiartrist in California, or goes by that name. Nor is there a reliable source for saying that. Maybe that article's history needs protection because of the BLP problems.

These BLP problems you, I, and others write about above need the attention of ARBCOM. You may find it hard to believe about an editor here for over 10 years, with over 100,000 edits, and not shy about controversy, and they have never taken part at ARBCOM even once. That's me.

I have the memory and enough things written down like up above, to start a case. Two things- Would you be able to privately email me a copy of the Naomi Ishisaka so I can address its shortcomings without guess work? Secondly, could you help me with the ARBCOM filing? You say ARBCOM is busy but BLP is at the heart of WP and the problems we are both seeing need to be addressed sooner rather than later....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: I've never started an ArbCom case. Will need help myself. But I believe this needed doing long ago. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in that there is no or little editorial overwatch on negative BLP content Out of interest, how do you propose this problem be fixed? Aren't we just limited by manpower, to review BLP violations? I guess one could argue it's ArbCom's job to figure it out, but I'd like to see how they get around the physical limitations whilst not creating undue barriers to editing (which would probably cause more harm than good, in all honesty). There's already BLPDS, but (ref... stuffs) I think too much ROPE is given sometimes. But the issue you folks mention is the opposite: less experienced contributors. And it's also much more difficult to deal with without those physical limitations. Maybe it's something for the WMF to chuck money at with some technical solutions, to overcome the human limitations. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I've no idea how to fix this. Grasping at straws. I can only hope that wiser and smarter people than I can. And yes, ultimately, it might require WMF action. But the community must at least try. WMF's solution is to claim indemnity against harm caused by editors. If, though blameless, you get a letter from an attorney, the WMF will offer financial assistance for legal fees. ArbCom can act without to much unreasonable resistance from the community, but this could create a firestorm just because some users fail to recognise the problem. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Nick Moyes, best of intentions I know but I don't think Special:Diff/977392157 was a good idea at all. This editor, apparently a minor, may well have ended up in (and still may) legal trouble if the offended subject wished to pursue it. What the editor did was an awful violation, and it'd be within the subject's rights to pursue it probably. Thus imo it's not our place to offer legal advice, and for someone in a sticky legal situation we shouldn't be offering any advice imo, not least an administrator offering advice to said minor in a tricky legal situation to make incriminating comments on their userpage before getting their indef. It may sound awful, but imo nobody should be offering someone in a position like that any advice at all, other than strictly Wikipedia procedural advice (eg on VANISH etc). For their own sakes, and the offending editor's. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DFO for sending me a copy of the article. It certainly cleared up for me what took place. I thought Fact may have missed the different spelling of the persons involved but its not so. IMHO this fiasco makes WP look absolutely horrible. Fact violating SYNTH to draw the conclusion that they were the same person was bad enough, but they did it such a way it should set off a big flashing red light to any other editor around here that this article had a potentially bad BLP. That's because the part saying Foote now uses a penname was near the very top of the article and not referenced. That should of told editors 'Whoa!' but it didn't. Instead we know because of this[12] and this page[13] that at least five editors, including one administrator, failed to see the glaring problem. One of whom, an editor with over 100,000 edits here, even tagged it for BLP sources. That reflects horribly on WP as does the actual defamation.

I'm going to file something with ARBCOM but it won't be till the middle of next week earliest. I'll keep you advised. Should you have any thoughts on the filing, send me a message....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, I really don't see what ArbCom can do to fundamentally fix the issue. What happened here is a 4k edits editor added this problem. Administrators already have the tools, should they exercise them, per everything in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Role_of_administrators, to deal with this when they see it. But WP:BLPDS is so underused (ref AELOG and AN/I discussions), and many aren't aware of it. If admins feel WP:BLPDEL is too restrictive to have taken earlier action, the community could amend that and make it easier to preventatively (temporarily) delete possibly problematic new BLPs, pending discussion on BLPN (or a sub-board of it exclusively for this), but seems like "restrictive BLPDEL" wasn't the issue here. They can already remove content on existing ones & protect per WP:BLPADMINS. Note, though, anyone could've draftified+blanked it (temp). But that's what it comes down to, admin action.

What's implicitly been suggested here is that ArbCom do something to prevent this stuff which doesn't require admin action (eg implement general prohibitions). But none would (or should) apply to a 4k+ editor, and how can you otherwise predict a 4k+ editor was going to create this page? It got past NPP, which is an issue, but what if someone later added this to a new (OK at the time) patrolled page, it would make the NPP point moot anyway. What it needs are technical solutions, beating the manpower barriers, to first flag content, then more proactive admin action to deal with it. ie maybe an edit filter for controversial remarks, or WMF to pay for some AI to detect libellous/problematic edits. Sure, maybe ArbCom could encourage freer attitudes and fix the issue where IPs were getting blocked for removing controversial content (which was ridiculous), but community could do the same. Maybe AC will come up with something unprecedentedly smart & fancy to address the fundamental barriers implied here, if it's even possible at all, but the typical solutions of enacting DS / 1RR / 500/30 are not smart & fancy, nor would they have helped in this case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I think the EF I lay out there could help. It would create a perm log patrollers/others could look over and find such remarks being added to living people. It'd take some tuning to get it right, but once done I think it's the most realistic and biggest defence to this kind of stuff. Right now we have no edit filter, ie no log, of people adding claims a living person shot/killed/murdered/raped, or other such controversial remarks, which is somewhat surprising. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are your edit summaries exactly the same as your comments, such as this? Just interested to know. --94.73.33.144 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, just the short ones, I like to be clear about what I've written. I dislike writing non informative edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) time, day month year (UTC)

I was just looking for an admin to close the current ANI incident for User:PeacePeace which seems to have consensus for site ban and has been there longer than the 72hr waiting period for blocking decisions. Would you be willing to assist? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 09:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwenhope: Great Ghu! So many admins said "site ban"! I'm on my way out the door. Looking forward to formatting the block log entry on my return. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwenhope: Sorry, I'll leave it for someone more experienced at closing ANI threads. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RiB did the job. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I made a new draft article about an high school. I also you thank you for deleting the Spring Hill article because it was not notable for an school article. Go check out the high school draft when you get a chance! Hope, you have a great day! Richard Raleigh (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly suggest how i can make page for my website ?

if any video tutorial available kindly share ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.77.27.152 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's your Website? Please see User:Deepfriedokra/g11. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must meet inclusion criteria such as WP:GNG.

"All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a second opinion on this revert on the grounds of WP:SYNTH/commentary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: You are correct in saying, "still WP:SYNTH; it's not Wikipedia's job to interpret photos in that way". I'm sure that would look good in an essay or paper. Here, it's WP:OR --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work you have been doing.

I published an article on Yetunde Teriba, an AU diploma tYetunde_Teriba which I got a notification that you reviewed, and in the same vein I got a notification for speedy deletion from another user. I do not know the one that came before or after.

I am relatively new to the deletion process, I can't seem to find the speedy deletion tag so I can contest why it should not be deleted. I probably did not get the tone right, hence why I am humbly requesting for a review before deletion. Honestly though, it is hard getting content and media in the Africa space, we are trying to combat this by putting one piece at a time. Little help here please.

Thanks alot.

IJ30ma Irene (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IJ30ma Irene: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia, the world's largest free-content encyclopedia. I declined the speedy deletion and cleaned up the promotional content. Please see User:deepfriedokra/promo for more information on avoiding promotional content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Thank you for the clarification and pointer to the article. We learn everyday, I just did. Would search for more articles on promotional content in order to avoid such next time. Thanks once again. Ciao IJ30ma Irene (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Good day. Here again. Pardon me, please review the article again, a sockpuppet came and sent everything tumbling down. Now I can't even understand the article anymore. Thanks IJ30ma Irene (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deepfriedokra, the Hari Mari, a WP:PROMOTIONAL article whose creation was restricted to extended user only by you has been recreated as per logs. Please have a look. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 19:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amkgp: Protection expired. Perhaps the deletor will reapply protection.19:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Deepfriedokra, this Richard Raleigh once again!! 🙂 Can I recreate Evergreen Group Station as an draft. I know it been deleted. Richard Raleigh (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Raleigh: You will need to deal with the concerns over sourcing and notability found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Group Station. It will need to meet WP:NCORP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will add notable references to it. But can we have a meeting Sunday about recreating the article. Richard Raleigh (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What, no pics of fried okra (asks the man who had some for lunch)? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting the page! I'd like you ask you an opinion. My IP range is one of the IP ranges used by the anonymous vandal to disrupt that page, and this is the reason why it was partially blocked. But the vandal can use also other IP ranges, yet only my IP range was blocked. Do you think that, now that the page is protected, I might write an unblock request? 151.21.71.107 (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Dredg and User_talk:Woody#Protection_of_Dredg. It appears that an LTA from the 151.21 block is an LTA. I've blocked a few of the IPs and @Ohnoitsjamie: has done a number of rangeblocks. PC seems like a good solution at the moment but also rather bizarrely is what the LTA wants. Woody (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully what follows: I'm "N O T" the vandal who disrupted that page and other pages both here and in other wikis. I thought I implied it in my comments. Because of that vandal, who shares an IP range with me, I found mine partially blocked, and frankly this annoys me. The vandal is continuing disrupting the page by using other IP ranges, it's obvious that protecting the page was a good solution as you said. He was the cause of the block, so I'm against that vandal and I'm trying hinderim him. If I were the vandal, if I had an interest in disrupting that page, why on earth would I request for its protection? To prevent myself from editing even more than I'm already prevented? I could change IPs and edit it over and over if it was me, instead I've asked to impede precisely this. I'll be happy if the vandal who caused a block involving me has his plans ruined. So far he's gone on doing what he wanted, but now that the page is protected, even if not in the most suitable way, he'll be prevented from doing it again. That's what I wanted, that's what admins wanted, only the vandal didn't want it, so may you tell me what's wrong in this? Do you really believe I'm that vandal? I'm not him, period. He's been switching IP several times, I'm wondering since the beginning why only mine has to undergo a block because of him, this really bothers me... 151.21.89.158 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that you (the non-vandal) just happen to be on the same Italian IP range as the vandal, and you're both only interesting in editing the page of a fairly obscure California rock band? Totally plausible. There's good news, though; good-faith editors who are affected by range blocks can Wikipedia:Request an account, so that they can make their non-vandal edits. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra; I don't believe any protection is necessary for that page; it's being handled by (long) partial range blocks that are obviously connected to the same individual. This request for protection makes no sense, and is being requested by the person who is partially range-blocked (that range is now also partial-blocked from further frivolous RFPP requests). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many users can potentially connect to a /16 IP range? 2^16 (65536). Let me quote the page about the telecommunications operator providing this and others IP ranges: "WINDTRE has 27.1 million mobile customers with a market share of 30.8% (placing itself ahead TIM, Vodafone Italy and Iliad Italia) and 2.7 million customers on fixed lines with a market share of 13.2% (that makes it the second largest fixed line operator, behind TIM).". It's sooo obvious that 2 (two) anonymous users from this IP range are the same person and it can't be otherwise!!! For goodness sake... I don't even know anything about that California rock band. You know, there's no shame in admitting you've been wrong, but rather it's a sign of maturity. I can't help thinking that secretly you know you got it wrong and that you just think that doing the right thing would be embarassing to you. It's the opposite, insisting on something wrong just not to show you've opened your eyes and changed your mind is what makes one appear on the wrong side for all to see. All this is happening because of "you". If there had been another admin in your place, maybe not every other admin but certainly most of them, the solution would have been protecting the page instead of increasing a block with no real reason (because no further vandalism has come from this range, just from other ranges). One who cares about the project, seeing that new IPs are being used to disrupt a page, would protect that page instead of pouncing on IPs that are already prevented from editing such a page. The only reason to do such a thing is because the issue has been taken personally, it isn't any more about the sake of the project but about an admin and an anonymous using the same IPs used by a vandal. I may be wrong, I'm not perfect, but that's what I think, and probably I'm not the only one who thinks that. 151.21.85.156 (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty exciting, but there is no reason to protect the page as long as we can block you from editing it. Let's compare the two options: (1) semi-protect the page, which limits ALL editors editing from IPs or newish account from editing that one page, or (2) targeted partial-blocking a few ranges that all geolocate to the same place and are thus likely to be used by the same editor. Editors from those Italian ranges are free to edit the remaining 6.2 million articles in Wikipedia. Option #2 is extremely unlikely to inconvenience anyone except the Dredg pest. If you continue to beat this dead horse, I'll upgrade your range block to a full block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, y'all. I'd not dredged through all that info. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6.2x10^6 / 65536 = 94.6 articles apiece! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I might write an unblock request?" Oddly, that request is granted. As to personally, I'm thrilled to be allowed to curate the largest online free-content encyclopedia in the world (thank you very much) and take any abuse of that encyclopedia as a personal affront. Now that makes me pretty wiki-obsessed. Then I have to consider the wiki-obsessions of others. . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2601:183:857F:27C0:A5A8:6C9A:2FAE:B970 appears to be the same as Hellowikiwo and Wikiwohello who are making the same promotional edits. 2605:A000:1327:6313:4DE1:63B7:A890:CA48 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DeepFried! I am very new to wikipedia so I was wondering if we could talk on discord? I have a few questions for you. Thank you! (Reality#3567) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallenLarson (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DallenLarson: Absolutely not. Any discussion about editing Wikipedia needs to take place right here on Wikipedia. I and others have repeatedly offered you guidance and you insist upon promoting yourself. You might seek guidance at WP:Teahouse. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DallenLarson: I see you have recreated the draft in your user space. Please read the guidance I have given you. That is not what a user page is for. As your only purpose is self promotion, you are risking being blocked from editing by this persistence. Thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I am new to wiklipedia. I have no idea what I am doing. I want your help but you're not being transparent enough. I need to know exactly what to do. You said I resubmitted the version that had self-promotion but it isn't true? Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallenLarson (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help you. Help you what? Promote yourself? Sorry no. Obviously, you know what you are doing -- the opposite of what you have been advised to do. You might ask at the WP:Teahouse Obviously I have been unable to reach you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Place Clichy (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy: Thanks, but . . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. On a more serious note, this very poor article on a very non notable subject survived deletion before, although it seems that most editors did not really understand what it was about. From the single edit you did on this page (more than 10 years ago) it seems that you are one of the few that understand and care. That's why I took the liberty to notify you. Feel free to weight in one way or another or ignore it altogether! Happy editing! Place Clichy (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Rev-delling one BLP violation at Edge Hill University Unfortunately the same accusation (readacted) was re-added in a later edit - could you please rev-del that as well - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)  Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.. here. Apparently the disruptive IP has access to more than one /64 range, for instance they've also used 2409:4063:4e82:fe95:3eae:c0de:2b5c:4cf3. I've blocked the /64 ranges I can see, i.e. 2409:4063:4004:395f::/64 and 2409:4063:4e82:fe95::/64, for two weeks. Don't know how much good that'll do. @RexxS:; any more clever rangeblock that can be done, do you think? Bishonen | tålk 14:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Should I remove the full protection? My impression was that the IP was some sort of caste warrior, especially when they called their opponent a Nazi. Having said that, I did not want to appear to take sides in a content dispute. As you blocked, I take it I was overly cautious. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP seems to be doing caste promotion, not to mention the PAs in edit summaries (I think I'll revdel those, btw), so I'd be disinclined to treat the disagreement as if they and Fylindfotberserk were on the same level, having a dispute. Not that a full protection for a couple of days does any harm, but I'd rather go with semi for a week or so. Or nothing, I guess, since I've blocked the IP ranges (though how effectively remains a question). Bishonen | tålk 15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Apologies for getting into your discussion, but I'd like to link this discussion. Similar POV push on downplaying/removing the person's Gujarati ancestry was done by sockpuppeteer User:Karkanistan and their sock User:UserGK23 in the past, and possibly User:Kaistha. One of the things they did, just like the IP was to change the order of ethnicities/castes "Mathur" and "Gujarati Shrimali Brahmin". Also notice edit summaries that reflected patriarchal bias [14]. The caste in a BLP can be written if the subject of the article "self-identifies" that as per WP:INB. And in the video link from a reliable news agency Indian Today, the subjects father mentions it in the order: Gujarati Shrimali Brahmin grandmother and a Mathur Kayastha grandfather. I was just trying to maintain that order. Also to note, I didn't provide the source and the content in the first place. As for my own work, I've always removed caste mention in BLPs if there is no self-identification. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Thanks, if this resumes, let me know. Might want to file at WP:SPI. The IP's are blocked, and we don't connect IP's to accounts, but it might be good to document for future reference. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will. Will it be better if I file an SPI for User:Kaistha? ID seems stale though. But their contribs look WP:DUCK to me. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That' always tricky. Whichever you think the best match. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm not filing any SPI on that old account now, but if I come across this kind of disruptions, I report to you and simultaneously file an SPI. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, this guy is back. Look at the filth he posted in my talkpage [15]. My talk page needs to get PPed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He says his IP has been unblock. Special:Contributions/2401:4900:44DB:D9D5:1CCE:9A3C:5C88:7F11, Special:Contributions/27.60.101.96. Needs a range block. Pinging Bishonen as well - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I begin to run out of edits for this month (I currently limit myself to 99) and I notice that the creator stuck his toe back in the water a couple of weeks ago but I assume is unwilling to risk resubmitting, I wonder whether I would be terribly violating policy to move Draft:Rikkeisoft back to mainspace. I have discussed the WP:BITE in this case (as I see it; I believe the editor) with 3 other admins in the past, and prevailed on the editor who quick-failed the draft to change it from a template offering no way to resubmit. I have also worked on the article myself. I cannot read the languages of the references (Japanese and Vietnamese), but they appear to me to be adequate to demonstrate notability, and I do not regard the article as promotional in its language. I'm therefore willing to take the reputational hit from re-mainspacing it, and I have a few edits remaining to do my best to defend it at AfD if necessary, but the creator moved it back to mainspace himself rather than resubmit it, and so it has been in effect quick-failed again in the re-draftification. I'd hate to think either that it has become effectively impossible for us to have a new article on a business (see also my statements at Talk:Whistle (company); I moved that to mainspace in 2017, I believe all my comments there were made while it was still a draft, but I could be misremembering) or that the increasingly common use of draftification is going to increase the barriers to broadening our coverage by tucking articles away where they're even less likely to be seen by an editor who can read the sources; that's already an inevitable unfortunate corollary at NPP of restricting NPP to a subset of editors. But how serious a violation of process would it be; are we talking WP:NOTBURO or consensus? (I am aware I could just apply to become an AfC editor, but I'm too soft-hearted for that, and besides it would involve downloading some tool.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks kinda promo to me. I'd hesitate to move it back. Was it User:MER-C that moved it back? I'd rely on their judgment. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was, but judging by the edit summary, purely on grounds of COI. As I say, I believe the editor's statement denying COI. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deepfriedokra. Thanks for deleting Jamison Creek Road. Would you mind doing the same for Moya Bobel Road, Uncle Man Road, and Empire Grade? They're articles by the same sock that are also tagged for G5 deletion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another Calitri sock has popped up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire Grade and is trying to mess with the signatures of an already blocked sock—see here and here. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deepfriedokra My name is King work and im am currently new here. I will like to ask you to delete the Mac Calvin draft article. Thank you for your support! King Work (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is about Sandra Haynie. The article has her categorized as a LGBT person and a lesbian but the article has no mention of her sexual orientation. Should those categories be on her (or any other similar living person) page then?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: Thanks, good question. IMHO, it shouldn't be a cat if not in the text. Having said that, I would check for prior versions that support it and for sourcing there-of. It might be interesting to look at the editing of whoever added the CAT. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian sportspeople dates to 2012 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this further. Martina Navratilova wrote a autobiography[16] saying she had an affair with Haynie. There is also an AfterEllen interview[17] with golfer [[Rosie Jones. AE , not Jones, asserts Haynie is gay. Jones said Haynie never came out....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for Haynie's article, a IP editor added[18] in 2008 that Haynie was openly living as a lesbian with the AfterEllen interview as a reference. At some unknown time, that got edited out of the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little tabloidesque. One could argue it sufficient for inclusion. I'd take out the cat and if anyone objects, there can be a discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited[19] them out of the article with a edit summary that had a link back to here. IMHO, edit on the side of caution....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to block Dellimation from UTRS. JBW (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long is the duration? --217.113.243.81 (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

er, no --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "er, no"? --217.113.243.81 (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Nein, non, Hayır, hayi, nyet ". And if you know anyone who is evading their, block, please tell 'em I said so. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #34748 - yes please. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged you on talk there earlier. I believe your histmerge accidentally removed the move protection on the page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any special requirements for this? --217.113.243.81 (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

admins who have singed WMF's privacy statement acknowledgement, due to the sensitive nature of UTRS.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random editors again attacking the article to remove the wrong version. It is very difficult for an editor to keep up with the attacks to constantly remove cited and sourced information from the article. Can you take another look at the situation? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir: probably Sitush, RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, and Vanamonde93 are more knowledgeable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should I ping them on the article talk? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I pinged them here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fairly standard instance of users needing to establish talk page consensus. Aditya Kabir, as far as I can see, those terms were not in the lead prior to your involvement in the article, and while the arguments opposing its inclusion on the talk page may be flimsy, you may need a formal consensus building exercise like an RFC before including the material you want in the lead. You certainly shouldn't be edit-warring over it. Incidentally, Deepfriedokra, I'd recommend EC-protection for this page; there's far too many disruptive edits from autoconfirmed accounts. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I am in the process of writing the case, and open an RfC. I promise not ignore the part "as far as I can see, those terms were not in the lead prior to your involvement in the article" in the case. Maybe a protection till a clear consensus emerges is all the article needs. But, you people would be experts on that. This certainly looks like an edit war on my part, though I kept asking for help everytime the discussion was disrupted, hopefully at apropriate places, and engaged each and every editor who kept removing stuff, requesting each and everyone to take part in the discussion; only two did and both left the discussion rejecting the idea of taking this to an RfC or a DRN. I still don't want to remain in anything that looks like an edit war, particularly in articles under DS. I hope I am still doing the right thing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update RfC posted at article talk page. I am afraid it's too long (how else could I present the scenario in a comprehensive manner?). Hoping for the best.

BTW, Okra, how do you get that rotating roaster of images in your talk banner? Can I have the codes or the template? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was that necessary? The team that was bent on removing content without discussion has removed the content, and are not discussing. What you protected is the version they were trying to achieve. And I cannot do anything for the article anymore. With or without the protection, the 30 stipulated days of RfC is the only thing that can happen against this team operation right now, and maybe an ANI is the only future. But I don't think anyone cares, and I shouldn't bother either. I don't own it anyways.

You still didn't tell how to get the picture trick you used in your talk banner. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Vanamonde93 above. [[File:((#invoke:Carousel |main |Shonen |switchsecs=3 )) |<div style='text-align:center;'>roarr</div>|thumb |centre |upright=1.7]] (stolen from Bishonen) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, you even stole the roaring! [Menacingly:] That belongs to Bishzilla, you know! Bishonen | tålk 18:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sure Bishzilla happily keep puny admin in pocket, where safe. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Grumpily:] Oh all right. Go sit in Victorian salon! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

As a special reward, I've made your own carousel for you. The images live at Module:Carousel/DFO (just a duplicate of Shonen's to start with) and you can freely edit that to change the list of images displayed however you want, without disturbing the one at User talk:Bishonen. Enjoy, and ping me if you need help. --RexxS (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the article was unprotected, our friends have reverted it twice more. And only one of them has so far participated in the RfC (mostly personal attacks though). The only participating one – عباس – has reverted the article about four times already, the last one a few hours back. Looks like you and Vanamonde93 was right about protecting the article. I just learned that edit warriors don't give up so easily. Sigh. Interesting to see that it is possible on the Wikipedia to declare your TEAM and its disruptive intentions openly along with personal attacks, and get away with it. So much to learn yet. By the way, you two haven't commented at the RfC yet. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment at the RfC, because I haven't the time to dig deep into the source material. Opening it was the right thing to do, but you've gone on at such length that it's likely to be self-defeating. In any case, you need to wait for it to be closed; edit-warring in the meantime does not look good. Furthermore, if you have concerns about the behavior of other editors, you need to bring it to administrator attention (as you have done here), and not go on about it on the talk page; you're likely to run afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS in doing so. Talk pages are strictly for discussing content. Administrator noticeboards are for discussing behavior. Your posts keep mixing the two, and make it very difficult for someone unfamiliar with the editors in question to get a handle on the situation. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to address this for the foreseeable future. Please discuss content on talk pages and conduct at WP:ANI. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. One more request. As I have found that I am really unskilled at dealing with such stuff, I would like to have a second (and third) opinion about any case I post at ANI. I would probably create the case at a sandbox and requeast you to advise. Is that alright? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, @Vanamonde93:, DFO, I have collapsed the lenght and striked out not nice parts in the discussion. Did I do right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir:, I appreciate that you're asking for feedback at every step, but when both Deepfriedokra and myself have told you we're too busy to get further involved, asking us to check every last thing you've done isn't very helpful. If we had the time, you wouldn't need to go to ANI in the first place. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Definitely overstayed the welcome. Sorry about that. I am just a bit worried about doing everything wrong and getting beaten up bad for that. I have found out the values of doing the right thing in everything rather painfully. I am sure I can be foregiven for being so pesky. Thanks you both once again, for the valuable advise and guidance. And... one last Y cup of tea before I leave. Ciao. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do excellent work, here and on UTRS. :) I sincerely appreciate when you beat me to a particular ticket and I'm frequently impressed (and occasionally amused) by your responses. You make it just a bit better, being an admin. --Yamla (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: You're welcome and thanks. It is perfectly soul-numbing to wade through those. Anything to make it more nearly bearable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP you just blocked, 120.29.67.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) shares a similar edit history to that of 111.125.118.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who was blocked for 3 months. I left a brief note on the AVI page mentioning such, but I don't know if that was seen or not. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zinnober9: based on the editing history of this IP, the block is sufficient. I'm loathe to place an excessively long block until the present block proves ineffective. One imposes the minimal block possible to avoid collateral damage. And, as you can see, that 3 month block, placed 3 days ago, stopped nothing as the vandal simply hopped to a new IP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, I see your reasoning. Just was seeing the differences, and if there were something about an IP hopper getting uniformly blocked for the same length of time, I didn't want you left in the dark about the other one, or if the hopping warranted upgrading. Thanks for all that you do, best wishes, happy weekend! Zinnober9 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We both met this editor this morning. their contributions record shows some suprises. The type of edit they have returned to WP to perform seems to be the small time trivial stuff, deletions excepted, and it could be argued that it is work to build an edit count in order to enable other functionality. I'm sure this has not escaped your notice. Fiddle Faddle 10:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As anticipated, 12:52, 27 September 2020 Jiv arshu talk contribs was automatically updated from (none) to extended confirmed user has happened. Of course, that was inevitable, but I am keeping an eye out Fiddle Faddle 11:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: not anymore G'night. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, good choice. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Sumbitch, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a nasty one. Urbane, polite, and rather aggravating, with the usual small number of useful edits among the ordure Fiddle Faddle 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to create article similar to previously deleted page Niche Garden Tiniphilip (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiniphilip:Why? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deepfriedokra,

"Draft: Sharad Pagare" has been deleted by "Speedy Deletion Nomination" by you.

I know some of the details mentioned in "Draft: Sharad Pagare" may fall under "blatant advertising" instead of being an encyclopedia. But don't you think that it can be overlooked because it is just a "DRAFT"? As per my understanding, "Draft" itself means that something is not final & it's likely to go through numerous iterations to reach into its final desired form, in this case which is an "Encyclopedia".

I am a new user at Wikipedia. I would request you, NOT to delete the Draft page as I am still working on it. How would I make the desired page if the Draft itself will be deleted? It will cease the opportunity for me to create an encyclopedia (named as Sharad Pagare), which I believe, should be accessed publicly.

Lastly, I would like to thank you for your action as it will help me to understand the difference between "Advertising" and "Encyclopedia", but at the same time I'd request for your kind cooperation & consideration to please give some time to new users, like me, so that we can come up with actual Encyclopedia.

Thank you.

Regards, Arjun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun Khede (talk • contribs) 09:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Arjun Khede, there are some things which are permissible in draft space but not article space; there are other things which are not permissible anywhere on Wikipedia. Amongst these are defamatory pages, copyright violations, and advertising or promotion - things like that are usually deleted on sight by administrators. If you recognise that the content was promotional, you can avoid this problem in future by producing drafts that are not promotional. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted Draft:Sample page/90526352 under G11, "unambiguous advertising". Did you read it before deleting it? How is unambiguous advertising? I was getting ready to delete it under G3 - blatant hoaxes, which it clearly was, but I didn't see anything remotely advertisy in it, and was getting ready to ask Celestina007, who tagged it, why he/she chose that tag. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn, as a non admin I can’t see the page now but I’m pretty sure it was promotional. It may have well been a hoax as well but if memory serves me right it was indeed promotional. Celestina007 (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) (I seem to be stalking here a lot tonight.) Guys it's complete nonsense whichever way you cut it. Yes, it's a hoax (or at least self-delusional); it's also self-promotional so G11 is fine. The particular CSD category isn't worth arguing the toss over. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I think there may be something going on here, there was an RFPP request earlier today to salt a page in this format but with a different number. Is there some process here that creates these sample drafts, like part of a new user welcome script or something? Also is that a photo of a power washer trigger in your editnotice? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: Well, getting past the insulting, " Did you read it before deleting it?" It was a bit of a mishmash wasn't it? Part vandalism, part nonsense, part promotional. The only thing clear about it was that it should be be deleted. Please, do feel free to restore if you feel I deleted in error, as I say in the edit notice for this talk page. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I did not mean to be insulting by asking if you read it before deleting it. There is no way I'm restoring it - it totally needed to be deleted. I just do not understand how it can be construed as promotional, which is what I was asking both you and Celestina007. I still would like to know what was promotional about it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: I just went back and looked, "this legacy creates a magical energy that is passed down thru bloodlines for all of time due to the fact that energy is never destroyed only recreated in this case inherited," is but one sentence promoting whatever the concept was they were promoting. Considering their high degree of empathy, they shoulda seen deletion coming. And considering the problems we've had with batch deletions and other nonsensical deletion approaches (resulting in desysopping) , I find your leading question about as collegial as a slap in the face. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Often when I look at the speedy deletion que, I see a large number of articles tagged as G11 which I don't think are as "exclusively promotional" as the CSD requirements call for. Sometimes I decline them, more often I leave them for someone else to deal with. Occasionally, as with this one, I find another CSD criteria that I think fits it better and delete it under that. Seeing that you went ahead and deleted it as G11, and knowing that you are more experienced as an admin than I am, I wanted to get a better handle on how you are interpreting "exclusively promotional", or how much review or consideration you are giving to if/how it fits or doesn't fit which criteria (not to imply - which I realize you thought I did earlier - that you are mindlessly mass deleting, but rather that I may be overthinking the CSD criteria when I am working the que). I still have questions about how that article fits the G11 criteria, but I'm afraid my thoughtless comment earlier has derailed this conversation, and this "article" was probably not the best example anyway, because no matter how you slice it it needed to go. That said, if, in the future, I have questions about how/why you took an admin action that is different than what I would have done, I hope you would be willing to help me understand, rather than thinking that I am attacking/insluting/"questioning" you unfairly. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ONUnicorn, there was also this nugget: This is magic that can not be learned its inherited with lineage meaning their ancestors accomplished great deeds or feats for their time. I descend from the pirate lineage of Captain Jean Lafitte only pirate to steal money from King Henry the VIII and get away. With the money stolen my ancestor actually founded New Orleans way back. That kind of seems like self promotion to me? Whatever it was, it needed to be deleted. In the Venn diagram of CSD, perhaps this was closer to the centre ground of G3 than G11, but I'd have thought that it wasn't worth anyone's time changing the tag when deletion is so obvious, let alone discussing the finer points after the fact. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]