why the revert? Seems sensible to include an image of a Secretlab chair, and the other changes were cosmetic. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Kingoflettuce, as a general point I reverted as that was a classic edit from this LTA. More specifically regarding the image in question, the LTA has a history of copyrighted image use, and this image was just uploaded by a completely new user, and is of very low quality with no exif data, suggesting it is yet another copyright violation. CMD (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting! I whiffed on those details. Good catch. Pity, cos a legit pic would be nice... Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kingoflettuce: Don't worry, I only caught it as I've become somewhat primed to. Unless there's some weird Freedom of panorama type issue around photos of chairs, you could ask at WT:VG. CMD (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it. I could even take a pic of my own but I'm not that great of a photog, heh. Circling back to that LTA---I must say it's quite intriguing! Some thorough investigative work there.... And equally thorough puppetry and histrionics.... Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's all your fault, Chipmunk, now I can't get out of this rabbit hole!!! Golly, this dude is relentless. I wonder how big the largest troll farm on record is. He must be close. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a few regulars that have been going much longer. Once they reach a certain point they stop getting regularly tagged and put on SPI, familiar admins just block them. CMD (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what do you make of this? Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't make anything of it at the moment. Reverting on the basis of an unexplained removal is fine. CMD (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I meant the unexplained removal itself. Same guy? 🤪 or am I just seeing things. I can't see random SG-related edits the same way again! Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It'd be a tall ask to pin a single edit that just removes a sentence on a brand new article on any sockfarm. Just as likely, it's a new account that has some particular issue with interior design or vets. (I really can't see why that particular sentence out of the whole article is objectionable.) It's always a safe route to simply treat an account as new, even if a bit suspicious. There are a couple of accounts that I was pretty much sure were socks, that I just didn't bother reporting. CMD (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've placed the SPI on my watchlist and I find it fascinating how this dude has supposedly created a whole bunch of socks all with just one or two edits each? Does that not take too much effort?! Wonder WHY he goes to such great lengths. Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some people get their fun in odd ways I suppose. CMD (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am referring you to ANI for the disruptive editing SexyBlackMale (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted the above ANI post and indeffed the user. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, the whole thing is a shame really. CMD (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CMD only know how to kill off new content, without spending effort to update. Kititto (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey I see that you reported me for edit warring. Please note that I posted the whole discussion about my edits on the South Korea talk page which you did not include in your report.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that posting on the talkpage is not a licence to edit war. CMD (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, I noticed the two reverts you did on those pages, and tried to go through the histories, but couldn't figure it out? Is there a back-story of some sort? (Not upset by it, just curious about how "Blockevasion" works). Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Hello, I was doing some very overdue cleanup on this LTA, which included a lot of edits from 2020 (overdue as I said). There's a long backstory and the Canadian edits were one small part. I was not involved, but to my understanding it relates to a period where they created Maplewashing (and Racism in Canada) and subsequently got in an edit war with another sockpuppet, leading to pointy disruption across a variety of pages. CMD (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fascinating. Thanks for all the work you do to keep the Wikipedia running. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis. You summary at Bubble tea was "(Rv WP:BLOCKEVASION)", but I'm confused what you were reverting? I only came across it while correcting cite errors. While doing so I generally check the article history to help understand why the error exist. Nothing else to this, I was just interested. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: Hello, sorry if I caused a cite error. I carried out some cleanup today on this SPI. For bubble tea, the edit in question was this one. Best, CMD (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blimey no wonder I couldn't see what edit you were reverting, that's quite some way back. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: And unfortunately the longer it is, the more likely you get errors such as the referencing one. Thanks for notifying me, I shall try to be more aware of similar potential issues. CMD (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello CMD. Just a note that I restored the version without the tons of historic flags under my own judgement - many of them have very little significance to Singapore. Just a headsup. The IP is clearly trolling at this point. Seloloving (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not an issue Seloloving, thanks for the note. Trolling is trolling, a rv like yours with an actual edit summary for the original editor is much more helpful. CMD (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis. You erased my edit on Human rights in Malaysia. Can you help me as to how do it better because the article is outdated and missing a lot of information. But I understand as it may be because we don't have many non-Malaysians understanding the topic. Thanks FahridShah (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content on Wikipedia should properly reflect WP:DUE weight among WP:Reliable sources. Thus, it is important to find high quality sources on topics, and to correctly reflect what those sources say, without adding original commentary on top of them. CMD (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok thanks bro. FahridShah (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WP:DUE and WP:OR links I included are important. A specific consideration derived from these is WP:SYNTH. It would be good, for example, to have sources that mention the topic of Human rights for the article in question. CMD (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you take a look at that page? ShelteredCook edited that page.

Do you get any INTSF vibes from this new account?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dungrer00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.120.12 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it's them, but please do report such things on the SPI page. CMD (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello CMD. Please see WP:AN3#User:Chipmunkdavis reported by User:KNAdamson (Result: ). You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied there. CMD (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this our old friend Kanto7? --RegentsPark (comment) 13:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RegentsPark: Yes, looks like it. Well done, I didn't notice despite seeing the name a few times on my watchlist. CMD (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought so. I've blocked them as a suspected sock of JesusJohnson7 (Kanto7 master). Not sure if it is worth an SPI so that's up to you! --RegentsPark (comment) 18:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to not file most socks these days. I can't block but I can do the rest of RBI, so if this is blocked then that's all and good. CMD (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I removed an inappropriate photo from your talk page. I believe it was vandalism by an IP. it was there for 10 days so probably some administrative actions are required for your talk page history.Premitive (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So it goes. @Ponyo: if you wouldn't mind extending the revdels, one of the rollbacks was apparently mistimed. CMD (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think maybe someone else already rev-deleted it. If not, please post the diff and I can zap it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ponyo: Well, I was referring to these, but now, you know, waves hands vaguely. CMD (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added semi-P to your talk page to keep the silly children at bay for a while. Let me (or any other admin) know if this causes you more problems than you wanted. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi.. refer to your last edit of reverting all sockpuppet edits including on Palembang people, Is it possible to restore his edit on this page? since on this page (only), his edit is actually improving WP and even you acknowledge that here, well.. maybe there are too much images, but that can be fixed. Also per WP:BLOCKEVASION, However, this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor. So I believe his edit on this page is acceptable can be further expanded. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ckfasdf, I have no faith in that editor's ability to evaluate sources, and they frequently added WP:OR to articles. I thus have little faith in the actual content of the edits. I at no point said their edits improved Wikipedia, the majority-if not all-of their edits were detrimental. Looking more closely at the edits you refer to, it includes multiple entirely unsourced sections. That is WP:OR, and is not acceptable. CMD (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I had to revert your revert here: [1], because in this situation one banned user was reverting another, so the page needs to be restored to the original version. Grandmaster 00:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem Grandmaster, always annoying that disruption adds up to more than the sum of its parts. CMD (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there are so many of them that it is hard to keep track. Have a nice evening. Grandmaster 00:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CMD, this edit request by a one-time IP appeared after you're recent block evasion revert on English language. I responded to it in good faith (Not done - unclear), but wanted to make sure you were aware of it, in case any follow-up is needed. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks BilCat. That's the same user. They like to claim innocence and raise questions through one-off IPs ([2][3]), deliberate preying on the good faith of others. If you are happy too, I would just remove the request per WP:BMB/WP:RBI. CMD (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was considering removing it, but wanted to touch base with you first, as I'm. not familiar. with the case. Will remove it shortly. BilCat (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, touching base part of the value of a community project after all. CMD (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey CMD, I've reverted you at User:Telsho[4]. Looking at the global log [5] I don't see a global lock. The account which added it is a weird one too, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lieutenant of Melkor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem Horse Eye's Back, it was part of a general revert. Probably should apply for global locks though. Best, CMD (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just FYI looks like I was wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C'est la vie. Let's see if more fun comes when the semi-protection here expires. CMD (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might want to request Page protection for disruptive edits. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi one week. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CMD, I don't believe we have interacted before, in spite of the IP editor's aspersions on ANI over the drama they started at kopi (drink). I assume you were aware right from the start that this person is a block evading LTA, and so you are actively denying their edits? Do you think I should file a SPI report? Haleth (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Haleth, yes the IP is an obvious LTA. It is now blocked. For IPs of this LTA, I find there is little point filing an SPI. Instead, the best tools are to file for a block (done in this case) or for page protection. Best, CMD (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I can tell, it's only a one month block because they were caught using a proxy VPN that is blocked, with no finding by the blocking admin(s) that the person behind the IP is a block evading LTA. I was informed in private by another editor that this LTA is likely Ineedtostopforgetting, so you are saying there is no point documenting their recent suspected activities as part of the LTA archive? Haleth (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user has activities running all the time. Perhaps it would be best to capture it, but that's taking up volunteer (your) time, and won't result in any additional admin action as the IP is already blocked. The one-month is usually long enough, these proxy IPs tend to be very temporary. CMD (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding List of modern armament manufacturers I'm not sure its INTSF but 隐世高人 (translates as "hidden master" so very subtle), UBQITOSW, 112.45.194.17, 112.45.194.206, 112.45.194.161, 60.248.112.221, Bulleye Jackie, and 185.246.88.104 appear to be a single threat actor. See for instance these interactions [6]. For now I'm going to open under 隐世高人, will tag you once complete. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a long time ago, but it popped up at the same time as many INTSF socks which is why I included it back then. It shouldn't matter anyway, it's an obvious troll account. CMD (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is most likely a vandalism-only IP. I'm keeping a close eye on him and his contributions. I'll report him if he starts doing it again because I'm confused if it's good faith or bad faith (I want to be sure, he's most likely bad faith), Thank you! Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 17:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure where to ask about this, but since you welcomed the user, I thought I'd start with you. Is this a valid username? I ask because Taka Michinoku (often stylized as TAKA Michinoku) is the ring name of an actual wrestler. I seriously doubt that we would allow a user to call themselves Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan or CM Punk, and this seems just as odd and prone to misinterpretation as the user being the wrestler in question. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Khajidha: We would not, per WP:IMPERSONATE. I have dropped a note on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Chip. You revert fast, but you might also find Writ Keeper's mass rollback script makes life easier. Bishonen | tålk 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Bishonen: Thanks, I happen to already have that for precisely these situations. It really does smooth maintenance. However, it breaks down when competing with Sinebot, so perhaps a (short) semi of Talk:Germany wouldn't go amiss. Best, CMD (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've already semi'd a number of the targeted pages. Talk:Germany, you say? OK. Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I wonder what it is that trips Sinebot up about that, as there is a signature present. CMD (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please clarify why you removed information related to the Straits Times being used as a propaganda paper? I think that is very important to its history, the history of Japanese-occupied Singapore, and how the paper evolved following the end of WWII to provide that information and context. The edits were well-sourced and well-documented in scholarly publications in English and Japanese, and I intend to return them to the page. Also I think that the sub-section headings were useful in breaking up a long history section to make it more readable, but that's neither here nor there. Kazamzam (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam: I removed all text added by an LTA who has a serial history of vandalism and source fabrication, and ironically, propaganda. I don't know which particular text you refer to, but on the topic of propaganda, they for example changed the text "The newspaper is sometimes referred as "the mouthpiece" of the ruling party" to "After Singapore gained its independence in 1965, the newspaper has since been referred to Singapore's newspaper of record due to its links with the government." This text was sourced to [7] and [8], both of which mention being a mouthpiece, but neither of which mention being a newspaper of record. In addition to the obvious POV pushing, this is not being "well-sourced". Often this user simply grabs a random source which sounds like it could be right and attaches it to their text, so it appears sourced, even though it's possibly garbage. If you think a source is useful, I advise reading it yourself and writing from that. CMD (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't explain what I was referring to precisely. I added a lot of info on how the paper was used during WWII when it was changed to the Syonan Shimbun by the Japanese military government with sources to back it up. That part was deleted, along with the LTA's changes, in one of your reversions and I didn't understand why, plus I wasn't sure where the comment on POV-pushing came from. I very much agree with your rollback of the changes made by the LTA. My apologies for not being clear on what I meant by a 'propaganda' paper, and I appreciate the explanation. I prefer to focus on history prior to the 1960s but if I can find some more relevant stuff on being a government mouthpiece, I'll add it in there. Thanks! Kazamzam (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's your work, that is my mistake on trying to pull the various threads apart. I have no objection to a reinsertion of your work which I have poorly excised as collateral. CMD (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis. I believe that there has been a misunderstanding. Well, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. A certain comment made over at Talk:Russia#Add Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022, to the lead has been flagged for disinformation by me due to containing an objectively false misquotation of @Mzajac by @Seryo93. My response to this misquotation, aside from initially pointing it out, has been to strike-through the relevant text, pending a retraction of the statement by Seryo93. I have contacted both Seryo93 and Mzajac, and I have made clear what is wrong and how I propose to solve the dispute.

I have asked Seryo93 to not remove the strike-through without first amending the misleading sentence. Obviously, it was you, CMD, who first removed the strike-through. So, Seryo93 is not guilty of anything at the moment. You are also not guilty of anything at the moment since you might not have been aware of the content dispute taking place. That is why I am giving you a chance to explain yourself now. If further disruption occurs, then I will take this case to ANI. And bear in mind, if it is you, CMD, who continues the dispute, then the charges will actually be against you, not against Seryo93. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the relevant discussion. User talk:Seryo93#I have struckthrough your comment on Talk:Russia because it is false beyond a reasonable doubt. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not edit others' comments in a way that suggests they wrote something they didn't. CMD (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I clearly wrote that I am flagging Seryo93's comment as disinformation since he is misquoting something that Mzajac apparently said. So, to you, I can equally say "don't misquote people". Jones. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is Jones? CMD (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a guess. I'm going to take this case to ANI soon, although not right now because I am pre-occupied with something else. You've got maybe half-a-day to a day to mull things over and consider your actions. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I advise you against taking a case of you editing another editor's comment to AN/I. CMD (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I provided a good reason for what I was doing, and I clearly explained it to all parties involved as well. Seryo93 misquoted Mzajac, and I intend to redeem the information that was presented there so that the misquotation issue is revolved. This can either involve deleting the material, rewording the material, or simply marking it as a misquotation with a little asterisk or something. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I (i.e. you) would wait until Seryo93 returns before anything else is escalated. I know that Seryo93 is currently active at the Russia article's talk page, although they haven't replied to my talk discussion on their own talk page yet. Indeed, if Seryo93 actually agrees to rewrite their comment in order to remove the misquotation, then no actions will have to be taken. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, misquoting another user is against the guidelines/rules of Wikipedia. It's not necessarily a criminal act if it was simply a mistake as opposed to deliberate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please also, consider this. This is a dispute that is primarily between me and Seryo93. If you yourself get involved even further, CMD, then that is on you. And you are bringing unnecessary trouble to yourself that doesn't concern you. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are very few situations where anyone should edit another's comment, and feeling something was misinterpreted is not one of them. CMD (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not simply a "feeling". It's a fact. The fact is, Seryo93 objectively presented a piece of information as a quote attributed to Mzajac, and that quote was misleading, portraying information in a way that was distinctly different from the way that Mzajac had originally presented it. I don't even care about the exact contents of what either Mzajac or Seryo93 were saying, I only care about the fact that the information was misquoted, which has caused complications in the flow of the discussion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read this sentence specifically: In any case, the claim that 2014 event was the first annexation in the world since WWII is, indeed, not true. -- attributed to Seryo93 in Talk:Russia.

In this statement, Seryo93 mentions "the claim" (by whom?), which, based on the flow of the discussion, can be inferred to mean "the claim by Mzajac". And, when analysing what Mzajac actually said in the preceding comments, he never actually said exactly what Seryo93 wrote.

The concept of "paraphrasing" can be considered here. Oftentimes, people paraphrase others because a direct quotation is not suitable for the flow of the discussion. However, there's a certain threshold at which point a rewording of a quote becomes a misquotation, presenting information that is completely different from what was originally being said by the person who is being quoted. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no quote there. CMD (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you're seeing, but that indeed looks like a quote to me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does the term "the claim" mean, then? To me, that indicates a quotation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quotes are generally indicated by quotation marks or similar visual identifiers. Not wishing to comb over what was a remarkably normal conversation before you decided to revive it a month after it ended, I can only advise again not taking to AN/I a case of you unilaterally editing someone else's comment. CMD (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you not read what I wrote about "paraphrasing" a few comments ago? A quotation doesn't have to be in quotation marks to be a quotation. When it isn't, that's generally referred to as paraphrasing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, this was my initial response to Seryo93 upon identifying the misquotation (which, mind you, I didn't notice immediately, and only noticed after looking more carefully).

Just to add to this conversation, I think you are misquoting @Mzajac here. As far as I can tell, he never precisely said that the 2014 event was the first annexation in the world since WWII. - JN

Meanwhile, this was Seryo93's subsequent reply to me, which does include a quote of Mzajac with actual quotation marks, rather than just paraphrasing.

"No one has taken such actions since the Second World War and signing of the UN Charter in the first half of the last century, and the following proliferation of nuclear weapons.". And yet, there were many post-WWII annexations waaay before 2014. - Seryo93 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cambridge definitions: Quotation, paraphrase. See also our related internal links, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. CMD (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those links aren't helpful. When someone says "the claim of such and such", that is inferred to mean "someone said such and such".

Indeed, Seryo93's comment would not be too problematic if it were instead written as, for example, "the idea that...", or "the notion that...", or "the implication that...". The specific detail that has caused me to label this a misquotation is the fact that Seryo93 specifically used the phrase "the claim that...", which implies a quotation more so than the other alternative descriptors that I've listed here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Seryo93 had said any of those alternative phrases, I probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid. It's the specific usage of "the claim" which I have a problem with. If he literally just changes that one word to any of the alternatives that I've listed, then that would effectively solve the problem. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My initial reaction to seeing Seryo93 write "the claim that", aside from coming up with a reply to Seryo93 himself, was to look upwards throughout the thread to see where somebody actually claimed that. Because, myself being reasonably knowledgeable about world history, I knew that that was an absurd statement to make, which is why I was checking to see who would have actually said it. And, indeed, nobody actually said it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The closest I could find to that exact quote was It includes the first annexation in Europe since WWII - Mzajac (Michael Z), which is located higher up in the talk section (not in that thread itself). But, as you can see, Mzajac specifically says "in Europe" here, rather than "in the world". That's a pretty significant distinction, unless you consider those two concepts to be synonymous. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still, as far as I'm aware, the example of India's annexation of Goa, provided by Seryo93, definitely does not pertain to the borders of Europe. Goa and India are located very far away from Europe. Perhaps Seryo93 has a terrible understanding of geography, and he actually thinks that Goa and India are located in Europe. Benefit of the doubt? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Admin talkpage watcher:) Jargo Nautilus, please don't strikethrough any part of another person's post. Strikethrough (<s>..</s>) is only to be performed by the person who wrote the text, see WP:TALKO. Since this is the rule, your striking through part of Seryo93's post will by no means "make it very clear that this sentence of yours is false", as you say here. Instead, it will make the impression that Seryo93 themselves have struck-through their sentence, in order to withdraw it. It's not for you to do a strikethrough, and still less to offer conditions for removing it, and making threats about what will happen if it is removed, as, again, you do here. I hope that's quite clear. Please remove your strikethrough yourself, if it's still there at the moment, and find some other way to make your point. I too advise you not to take CMD to ANI, since you are the one at fault, not CMD. Bishonen | tålk 23:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Well, how do you suggest that I resolve a dispute where someone has misquoted another user? I merely intend to resolve that one misquotation so that it no longer presents someone as saying something that they didn't actually say. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bear in mind also that I'm not saying that the contents of the sentence are false, only that the quotation is false. Indeed, it's kind of a misquotation of me to say that I think the sentence is false. Indeed, I actually agree with the contents with what Seryo93 is saying, since I agree that there have been more annexations around the world after WWII than just Crimea in 2014. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...because it misquotes @Mzajac as saying something that he didn't actually say. --> I think this part of my comment that you omitted is relevant. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for "making threats", you are mischaracterizing what is actually happening here. Indeed, I had it in mind to take the content dispute directly to ANI upon identifying the misquotation (and after Seryo93 replied to me), but I first decided to inform Seryo93 about the issue, and I informed him that I was going to take it to ANI. I was under the impression that I had to first use other less-serious avenues of dispute resolution before escalating towards ANI? Because the alternative is that I would have just immediately escalated the dispute to ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, you'll have to figure out how to make your point yourself on the article talkpage (and do please try to be concise when you do, and to avoid incurring repeated edit conflicts by posting so incrementally). I'm only here to tell you that you didn't do it in a good way, and that your attempts to intimidate other users into letting your strikethrough stand are inappropriate. (As well as, in the case of CMD, likely to be ineffectual, since he's an experienced user.) Bishonen | tålk 23:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I think the one takeaway from this conversation is that Wikipedia does not care about whether people misquote or not. Apparently, nobody here aside from me seems to think it's an actual crime. In any case, I'm pretty sure there are millions of instances of users misquoting other users on Wikipedia. So, it's just a normal part of Wikipedia, as annoying as it is. I may have to abandon my efforts to take this to ANI, but I will definitely write a comment underneath Seryo93's comment indicating that this is a misquotation, so that other users don't become as confused as I was upon reading it for the first time. (Note: I've already done something similar to this, although my initial comment was more like "I think this is a misquotation" rather than "This is definitely a misquotation".) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good. Bishonen | tålk 23:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

This is a request to you to not comment on my user page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I'm aware, if there is not an extremely good reason, it is against the rules to delete another user's comments at a Wikipedia article. You are allowed to delete talk page comments however you like at user talk pages, but doing so at Wikipedia articles is against common practice. You can only delete illegal content and spam without objection. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happily there was good reason. CMD (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There wasn't a good reason, actually. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silencing your political opponents is not (as far as I'm aware) allowed at Wikipedia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yes, I will clarify that you and I are opponents, Jones. After your repeated actions, there is no way to redeem our professional relationship. It is clearly impossible for you to engage in civil discussions with me, I am sorry to say. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple users have explained it at this point, although none so far have been called Jones to my knowledge. Might I ask what drives you to post a message asking someone to stay off a talkpage they had posted on once and then post multiple times on their talkpage? CMD (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't control who posts where. If you don't want me to post on your talk page, you can easily request this. As far as I'm aware, you never asked. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have full control of where you post. If you don't see the oddness in the situation I've outlined, there's little I can do about that. CMD (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I clearly don't have full control of where I post, because there's one page where I've posted in particular that apparently all of my comments are automatically eligible for deletion. Strange that? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, apparently, I am not allowed to strike-through another user's comment on that page, but you are allowed to delete my own comments outright on the same page. Maybe I should have just deleted the other user's comment, like you did to mine? That would have made things a whole lot easier. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not all, just the ones full of pointless invective. Please see WP:TALK#USE. CMD (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In conclusion CMD, there is nothing further to discuss. But I will keep my eye on you and HiLo alike. And if you continue to delete Colin's comment at Talk:Russia, I will continue to restore it. Delete my own comments all you like, it doesn't hurt me one bit. But leave Colin alone. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have a fixation on these comments, so perhaps you might consider that no-one deleted the comment in question until someone else appended multiple paragraphs of pointless personal opinion to it. I tried to offer you advice last time you were here, and I haven't given up apparently, so I will try to offer more: saying things like "I will keep an eye on you, but don't keep an eye on me" is unlikely to get you very far on this collaborative website. And as you have been advised before, please try not to use a whole series of edits to make one comment, it doesn't help make your points. CMD (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion has exhausted itself. As I said, there is nothing further to say. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the person deleting an entire thread to independently analyse each of the comments that they are deleting. Whereas you may have thought it justified to delete my comments, it seems that you made no attempt to assess Colin's comment, and that's on you, not me. Your strategy was essentially to "collar the lot". Indiscriminately nuking the entire thread. As I said, it's a slippery slope to delete the comments of two users at the same time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, all the involved messages were assessed by multiple other editors. I'm unsure why you think they weren't. CMD (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No evidence of this. Colin's comment had been up for a while before I replied. It was removed after I replied. While I accept that my own comments were probably eligible for deletion, I don't think his original comment was. By the way, some of my subsequent comments were not really eligible for deletion but they got deleted anyway. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And we are grateful that you removed them. CMD (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand how this happened, but apparently yesterday I delated a comment of yours at WP:AE: [9]. I remember there was an edit conflict, but I'm pretty sure I cancelled my text, saved it elsewhere, reloaded the page and then posted it without removing any text. Anyway, sorry about that and please restore what needs to be restored. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, that's what happened. Not to worry, I have posted a new comment. Best, CMD (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely people shouldn't be 'voting' twice. One of the 'votes' needs to be struck out. Sionk (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not best practice to have potentially duplicate votes, but striking through another editor's comment is not good practice either as (outside of striking sockpuppet contributions) it is assumed an editor strikes through their own text. CMD (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Inequality in South Korea, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G5 taggings, mass reversions, nuking, etc. are done after the SPI is closed, not before. Thank you. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DatGuy: Well that's a bit of buro I hadn't considered. Two month backlog on that, although given it's a blatantly obvious case hopefully sooner, if you would like to look at it then? Pinging @EdJohnston:, who handed the initial appearance on AN/EW all those months ago. CMD (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Daniel Case: Could you please clarify where I violated 3RR, given this is a 3RR block? CMD (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. My mistake. I overcounted your reverts. But still, you should have just not done that at all given the situation. I will reduce it to 12 hours and make it for edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, what I have decided to do instead is make it just 24 hours from the article. You're free to continue the talk page and AfD discussions. And anything else. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block notice amended appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Daniel Case: Well that is appreciated at the least. Regarding "given the situation"; the situation is that an editor had an issue with this page, so simultaneously nominated it for AfD and dropped multiple tags onto it. After being reverted (at first by another user), they continued to edit war in their tags over a few days. What would the preferred course of action have been? These are not changes I am seeking to make, and the discussion developed so oddly that proposed solutions match the already existing text. I disengaged once the conversation drifted far past productivity, as I already had with the article. Are you suggesting that I re-engage in that stonewalled conversation to deal with the tags that have apparently been successfully warred in? I'd rather not. Whatever the merits may be, there is clearly no consensus for them, and I'm not sure what steps I could take that would make that clearer. CMD (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could have requested protection, or warned him about edit warring ... I do agree that that conversation got increasingly bizarre. As noted at AFD it seems like the real agenda here is getting rid of any parallel OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that could be used to justify recreating and keeping the Kherson Oblast article. For it was only at the AfD did I understand why he was leaning on PRIMARY so rigidly—not as a source at all (I mean, what better source could there be for Country A considering Country B one of its provinces than language in Country A's own constitution saying in rather plain and unambiguous terms that it does so? Why would you need a secondary source for that? I don't think we need to cite anything in addition to the Jerusalem Law for Israel's claim to sovereignty over the entirety of the city?) but as a source justifying a separate article.

Or you could have, now that I think about it, commented the text out pending the outcome of the discussion. I know that's difficult given that it was the article lede, but at least that way he couldn't claim you were trying to protect the wrong version.

We really do need some sort of middle way on that ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Daniel Case: I did erroneously assume they had some formal knowledge of edit warring, as their edit summaries explicitly brough up both edit warring and BRD. When I saw that they had no previous formal warning, I provided one and waited for a response there. That response was linked in the ANEW report.

Regarding an earlier warning, I find early warnings to be a somewhat aggressive tactic and potentially escalatory occurrence from someone in a dispute, so I'm not sure I picked the wrong route there (much better for third parties to drop such notices). As for commenting out the sentence, I hadn't thought of that, but that seems worse? That takes away the very banal description of the topic for the reader, and ironically the first instance of contextualisation for the title. There not being a middle way is why we have BRD. CMD (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the same time you couldn't really rule out the possibility (which I think turned out to be true) that reverting his edits would just make him dig in and revert right back. I agree warning someone after a single revert has the risk of backfiring and unintentionally escalating (when I find myself getting in that situation, I try a non-templated discussion on the other user's talk page unless it's already clear they're not interested in talking), but after the third (or even the second) you might have been on firmer ground. I mean, it looks clear in retrospect he wasn't going to compromise. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Daniel Case: Probably true that you can never rule out that someone will edit war in their changes. However, it seems a bit depressing to assume someone will, and a couple of reverts with additional edit summaries is a common part of the editing process. I did leave the template after the third, and I will think about dropping it after the second.

I suppose the primary question for me remains what different actions I should have taken (running on the assumption that leaving problematic edits in place is not desired). Requesting protection for a content dispute I am involved in feels a bit iffy (another action I take as a third party but not an involved one), an earlier ANEW report feels escalatory. I stayed in that discussion for quite awhile, to the point where I genuinely went and fished up sources for the generic sentence in question, and sadly despite it I still don't understand the actual issue at hand (not looking for content opinion given you're taking admin actions, but the text already says what they want?). Escalating DR is not something that should be expected of those maintaining a stable version (especially as the least intrusive version, 3O, is already out due to the discussion having 3 participants). I reverted with edit summaries, provided a 3RR notice (even including a request for self-rv rather to seek an avoidance of bringing to a board), disengaged from edit warring and brought the situation to a relevant notice board, and discussed ad nauseum. That seems a pretty standard set of editorial actions, and it's dispiriting that it results in 3 new block log lines. CMD (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have really rethought this, and as a result I just unblocked you entirely. Just don't take advantage of it to restore the edits until at least his block expires. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for adjusting your ((od)) tag at ANI but it seemed like the clearest way of solving the issue of clarifying what post was in response to what. If you have concerns or I did not correctly capture your intent please let me know. Gusfriend (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intent was more to create somewhat of a physically new space, but it's not a problem either way, thanks! CMD (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this[10] ring a bell? This belongs to an Australian IP-hopping editor that has edit-warred in lots of pages about the eastern Indian Ocean region. I vaguely remember that there was also a main account associated with them, but I might be mistaken. As of now, I cannot simply revert them for block evasion. Austronesier (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Austronesier: Unfortunately the mind frazzles, the area is far too rife. My immediate guess is WCF, but that is perhaps only due to how prolific that one is. CMD (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, this one is much more blunt and bearish than WCF. I've found the "original" IP: User talk:113.197.13.138. It seems they have never created an account, or were indeffed with some account beyond my knowledge. –Austronesier (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I think you reverted my comment on the European Union talk page by error. At least your Summary seemed disconnected to my comment. I don't know what the convention is, but I decided to put my comment back and ping you about it.

Let me know if I missed something. The80srobot (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for noting The80srobot, not sure how that happened. CMD (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CMD, just a quick note to beware 3RR on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America. I've absolutely no intention of reporting you, but I will report the other user if they revert again, and an admin might not be feeling generous towards you! Hopefully we can get them to discuss their issues on the talk page so we can explain WP terminology to them, especially on the use of state vs. country. (Confusing to us Americans, as we generally call independent states "countries" for obvious reasons!) BilCat (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such is policy, thanks for the note. I posted some links on their talkpage regarding the content after one of the reverts, hopefully they read through them. CMD (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully they did. BilCat (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I'm being accused of canvassing by an IP (from Vietnam) with only one edit. Strange. BilCat (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's an old friend. CMD (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yours or mine? :) BilCat (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one is mine! Keep your mitts off! CMD (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got more than enough! Do you want a few of them? :) BilCat (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I go for quality over quantity. CMD (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ones I have in mind are very high quality! For LTAs, which isn't much. BilCat (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought bots did that automatically considering how every user gets news and the articles are given the GA icon automatically too.Tintor2 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tintor2: Bots add the GA tag to the articles, but they don't add it to the GA lists. That should be done by the reviewer (WP:GAN/I#PASS), who will be quite familiar with the article and thus able to place it. CMD (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tintor2: fyi: the User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool can help adding it to the GA lists. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this comment; I've been moving a lot of old GANs under now-redirected pages recently, and if the parent page is a disambiguation page I have not been leaving a redirect behind. My thinking is that the redirect doesn't identify which of the pages the dab points to, and so long as the talk page and GA subpage are in sync, that's the main thing. Do you think I should be leaving redirects in those cases? They can be fixed by moving them back, and moving them again, this time leaving a redirect, if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure what you mean exactly about the redirect not identifying a particular dab page. My thinking was that existing links can be broken if a redirect is removed. This is likely due to my coming across, for example, some Article history templates that point to older un-redirected titles. Where there is no clash (eg. avoiding perhaps situations where two pages from the same disambiguation are at GA), it seems harmless at worst to leave the redirect in place. CMD (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For example, when I did this move I didn't leave a redirect because 2020 World Grand Prix is a dab page. It seems wrong to me to have pages that are children of dabs but which are related to other pages. I looked at a few incoming links when doing these moves and all I saw were old article alerts in archived WikiProject pages, which seemed harmless. I did harmonize the GA subpage with its new parent: Talk:2020 World Grand Prix (2019–20 season) now has article history that correctly points to the moved subpage, so there's no redirection needed there. If you think it's better to leave the redirect in place in case it's ever needed I can start leaving them there. I suppose the only time it would ever cause a problem would be if the dab for some reason stopped being a dab and needed to have its own GA subpages, and that's probably never going to happen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, subpage redirects existing from page moves is a natural expectation, whether or not the replace page is a dab. I am unsure how common that feeling is, of course. I do feel it's better to leave it there, but not strongly enough to suggest you remove back and forth all previous articles to recreate the redirects. CMD (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see this is one of those debatable questions. I'll start leaving the redirects in place when I do more of these, then; I guess it's harmless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie: Found an example case, that hopefully shows what I meant better than my words above. Talk:Americana (1981 film) was just moved, along with its GA subpage (hooray!), but the Article history template still points to Talk:Americana (film)/GA1. CMD (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, agreed. In the ones where I didn't leave a redirect, I changed the article history (or failedGA, or GA) template to point to the right place, but if one doesn't do that the redirects are necessary. And they can get referenced elsewhere, so I think it's fine to leave them. The bot just got approval to move the 2,000 or so I listed, and it will be leaving redirects for all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BAG 'em and tag 'em! CMD (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

👍 Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except apparently I didn't fix it enough as it's complaining again. I'm not sure what the bot is complaining about and am about to start debugging; can you see anything that I left in that's incorrect? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Figured it out -- I had written it to expect "GA nominee", not "GAnominee". Now fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True code. CMD (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just closed the poll at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, and you are now officially a GAR coordinator. Congratulations, I guess. Happy editing, —Kusma (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the closing and the note of partial encouragement! CMD (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, CMD. You are correct, I should have written as 2008, not 2010. The GA declaration was inserted with the 9th ever edit (of 16 lifetime) by IP address editor 72.87.146.61 (contributions) (talk); not-logged-in edits, by editor whose other not-logged-in edits in 2007 and 2008 were on articles Mars Hill Bible School and Louis Ignarro. Along with their edits to Operation USA, they entire body of work at that time (well, 11-of-12 edits) were on these same three articles that the creator of Operation USA was coincidentally working on. The same creator who requested GA status, and who also admits here that, well golly, wouldn’t you know that it just happens to be a conveniently not-logged-in "coworker" of theirs who, with their 9th ever edit and all that associated expertise, granted the GA confirmation on the article. Jmg38 (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

I would like to report a sock of a LTA (with a dedicated WP page), in relation to an edit on a page which you previously reverted as socking when the LTA edited.

However, I am currently under a topic ban which may be related to the edits in question made by the LTA. I would like to request permission to make the SPI report, or if appropriate, any alternatives to making a report. Carter00000 (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Carter, I am unable to alter your topic ban. You need to approach the admin who issued it. CMD (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted and will follow-up with the issuing administrator. Carter00000 (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? RPC7778 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi RPC7778, this was fixed as can be seen on the page history. CMD (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I realize I could've brought this up on the talk page, but it's more of a question than anything else. Is there a rule that the ((article history)) template has to have the currentstatus parameter defined? I ask only because, on 1984 New York City Subway shooting, the banner template immediately above article history already produces a banner that the article is a GA (and, of course, that template pushes the GA status to all the wiki project ... somehow ... as you might be able to tell by my use of the word "pushes", I don't actually understand anything). I guess we could always use ((banner holder)) to cut down on the length of the talk page headers, there.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jerome Frank Disciple: No problem reaching out here. The currentstatus parameter is needed on ((Article history)) as that template creates all the categories for GAs, FAs, etc. I came across Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting as it threw up an error for not being in the GA talkpage category. You have a point about the visual duplication; that's a new occurrence due to the changes to the Wikiproject bannershell that I'm not sure was discussed. There might be a way to create interdependencies between the templates, but you'd have to raise that with those better at template coding than myself. CMD (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the info! I'll go ahead and use ((banner holder)) to try to shrink the size of the headers down a bit, and I'll make sure not to remove that parameter again :) Sorry about that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem! CMD (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]