User talk:Deepfriedokra/archive 2020-01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy New Year, Deepfriedokra![edit]

Happy New Year!

Deepfriedokra,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Aledownload's unblock 'demand'[edit]

Hey, DeepFriedOkra! Just to be fair, the user is a native speaker of Italian and is most comfortable in romance languages, where 'demand' means 'ask'. Italian is demandare, French is demander. It's a not-uncommon mistake. Not saying this user is useful, they clearly haven't bothered to even try to understand what constitutes an acceptable source, but I think they possibly didn't mean to demand to be unblocked. --valereee (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it[edit]

You are accusing ME!?!? OF A CRIME I DIDN'T COMMIT!?!? DONALD ALBURY VIOLATED MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUDDY! you are a bad admin GlottalStop777 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 6)[edit]

Hi User:Deepfriedokra,

Thank you for "Pending Changers protecting" I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 6). As all celebrities have been revealed, no users will be able to add vandalise or add unsourced information about this anymore. Could you unprotect this page now that all celebs are revealed? Happily888 (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-- Deepfriedokra 11:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

Thanks so much Deepfriedokra!
Happily888 (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U R welcome.-- Deepfriedokra 11:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you for deleting my account[edit]

Fucking die you cunt Supreme Leader Coke (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Leader Coke: Thanks for yout note. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:WEBHOST. Thanks`-- Deepfriedokra 00:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jato Ehijator[edit]

When undeleting, it's probably wise to remove the speedy deletion tag, eh? WilyD 11:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WilyD: Thans. Drat.-- Deepfriedokra 11:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swedroe Architecture[edit]

Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

quirie from Winterbugahod nee Kiracrack[edit]

why you are deleting this page. this referred to a website attached and really and exists organization. if have concern or suggestion about this page please talk to me so I can follow the guideline given by you. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiracrack (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Winterbugahod: (Tyro_Gyn_Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thanks for your note, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a random collection of information, so subjects of articles must meet notability requirements, be non promotional, and have content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." The sources in the article did not meet that requirement. (The second one did not even mention the subject.) In fact, and as mere existence and having a website is insufficient for an encyclopedia article, it appeared the subject meets this criterion for non controversial deletion. I will, nevertheless restore, in article space, as you moved it from draft where it had been sent to develop.-- Deepfriedokra 16:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS @Winterbugahod: Will need to meet WP:CORP.-- Deepfriedokra 16:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I did leave an explanatory note (as almost always) on user's talk page..-- Deepfriedokra 16:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Philbin page[edit]

Can you please protect the Joe Philbin page? A random editor keeps putting that he is on the Dallas Cowboys as a offensive line coach. However, It has not been confirmed by the Cowboys and I have to keep on reverting it back to the original and the editor keeps saying "Added content" or "Fixed typo" before an official announcement has been made. TheBigMan720 (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. User blocked.-- Deepfriedokra 21:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the block was appropriate, but TBM720 should be blocked as well for repeated violations of 3RR. This is not a vandalism issue. It's an issue of editors having conflicting preferences over when information is official enough for us to record it and two editors endlessly reverting one another to enforce their own positions. TBM was advised about 3RR within the past two days and has evidently not heeded that advice. See this discussion for more background on a similar issue on another football coach page. Lepricavark (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lepricavark: Thanks for the note. There were other problems with the blocked user, with warnings for more than one page. If memory serves, I blocked for unsourced fro repeated additions of unsourced content and not edit warring. @TheBigMan720: Please take heed as you likely qualify for a block for edit warring yourself. Feel free to respond here to L's assertions.-- Deepfriedokra 21:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) FWIW, please also see Talk:Joe Philbin where TBM and another editor are engaged in a protracted, non-indented discussion that can be boiled down to "You're wrong!", "No, you're wrong!" I asked them to stop (and to indent properly), but I got four edit conflicts before I finally got my edit to save. Lepricavark (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But then again, I never got a notification that I was in an edit war on my talk page by a admin for those edits. I never try to edit war at all on here. I find ways to get around that. TheBigMan720 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is edit warring regardless of whether you receive a notification. Please don't repetitively undo edits unless they actually are vandalism according to the definition found at Wikipedia:Vandalism. I believe you have good intentions, but you need to slow down and take time to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. Lepricavark (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But multiple IP's who put the incorrect information are wrong on some pages and it has to be stopped. I have familiarize the policies I understand it really well now. Why are you tracking my every move on Wikipedia Lepricavark? TheBigMan720 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBigMan720: Admins don't usually give and are not required for warnings (any user can give a warning), though to be fair, we usually make sure warnings are in place before blocking. Though you are correct a warning should proceed someone reporting for an admin to block. There are < 500 admins and > 5,000,000 articles. We cannot always be on the ground in proactive mode. Most of the time we are like firefighters in defensive mode. You did the right thing asking for page protection, and it's frustrating watching your house burn down 'cause the fire department is fully deployed on other calls.-- Deepfriedokra 12:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC) And edit warning, apart from reverting true vandalism, is wrong even when you are right. So the thing to do is to stop reverting, discuss, and report at WP:RfPP *as you did or ask an admin) and report the edit warrior at WP:EWN.-- Deepfriedokra 12:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Thank you for clarifying that for me. TheBigMan720 (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helped. Wasn't sure how much sense I was making. The whole thing was a bit fraught.-- Deepfriedokra 19:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review Abhishek Kumar Ambar[edit]

Thank you sir for your review. Sir the link of amazon is reliable the books are compiled by Vasudha kanupriya and it contains Poetry and biography of Abhishek Kumar Ambar. And sahityadarpan,world book fair report and rekhta some other links are also reliable and it is the proof of notability. And Sir the poems of poet become more notable then him.so I used Poetry links so reviewer can understand both things. And Sir rekhta, kavitakosh, hindi kavita etc have their Editorial Team to review the poet. So it is also the reliable source. And Sir the basic Detail are always same in poets life birth, education, mentor so it looks like old version of page. But I try my best to improve the article and also want some suggestion from you. thanks Swapnil Kaustubh (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to talk page watchers-- My dog is calling for me to drop the keyboard and step away from the computer. Please feel free to answer in my stead.13:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Trouble with Amazon is they are not reliable, independent, verifiable source. They're book sellers, trying to sell books. They have a fiduciary responsibliity to their authors that may be at odds with the encyclopedic objectivity. If one is merely looking for WP:RS confirming the books/writings/etc, I've found WorldCat useful in the past. Can't remember if rrekhta, kavitakosh, hindi kavita etc are connected with the subject or publisher, but if so, they are stlll not independent. ANd it is possible for an author's works to be more notable than they are. BTW, the relevant notability is WP:AUTHOR. Hope this helps.-- Deepfriedokra 15:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a knackered editor[edit]

Put your feet up on the schäslong (="long chair" in French but with Swedish spelling) and decompress, friend DeepFried, and may the braincells regenerate! Bishonen | talk 17:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
merci beaucoup-- Deepfriedokra 18:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a big schäslong! – Levivich 06:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's longue, you see, Levivich. Like a chaise with a pouffe all in one. Bishonen | talk 13:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

message from Aadya W on G11, G12 material[edit]

Hi ! I am a beginner at Wikipedia. Could you please elaborate the reasons you deleted my sandbox.

As i stated in the description that I had the rights to use the material from the site of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadya W (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aadya W: Thanks for your note. I don't know how to explain more clearly than I did on your talk page. We cannot use material copyrighted elsewhere. It does not matter what rights you have.Wikipedia is free content. The page was unambiguously promotional, and thus unsuited for a neutrally written encyclopedia. Please read the messages I left on your talk page for greater depth. Thanks, and happy editing. -- Deepfriedokra 05:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info regarding the University of Calcutta page.[edit]

Thank you for activating the protection mechanism for the page. I am a student of the University of Calcutta and I request to verify and modify the motto of CU which presently consists of misinformation. Thanking you in anticipation. Sagnik Nayak. Sagnik Nayak (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagnik Naya: Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia, the worlds largest free-content encyclopedia. Please discuss the page's content on the talk page. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Thanks, and happy editing.-- Deepfriedokra 06:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it! Go use the schäslong![edit]

Every time I go to block some promotional account, you're there before me! It gets annoying! You're too fast! Go lie down on the schäslong! Bishonen | talk 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I shall do my best. My OCD/Asperger's/hypomania permitting.

-- Deepfriedokra 21:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking my account[edit]

--Firashatali (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks for unblocking my account.[reply]

Little request[edit]

Hello, could you protect the article The Voice Portugal? It has been consistently vandalized with fake results or fake announcements. ✘ PHOSPHOR | 💬📜 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)  Done[reply]

J/Boats[edit]

TY for the tips on making my page Draft:J/Boats acceptable for publication. I went in to work and incorporate your suggestions only to find J/Boats was created by User:Ahunt after I started mine. I'm glad the page is now a real one - guess I don't get any credit for it. Did you find my article lacking or the idea of creating a page about the company flawed ? More importantly - should I delete my draft ? Thehornet (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It did not have sufficient sourcing to establish notability. No call on the suitability of the present article. The new page reviewers will need to review it. This is a first.-- Deepfriedokra 18:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wasn't aware that there was a draft version of the article until after I posted the new version. This article has been on my list to do for a while. It is now properly sourced and meets WP:NCORP. Yes, the existing draft is pretty much moot now, it can be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green lantern bot[edit]

Green lantern bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

All Your Green Lantern Belong To Us!

I notice you declined a report at WP:UAA about this user's name. But when WP:MISLEADNAME says Usernames which could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" ... are not permitted because they may be misleading in a way that disrupts the project, isn't action of some kind required? Dorsetonian (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dorsetonian: Well, no. It was not my intention to give the impression of declining. Sorry to create that misunderstanding. They have issues I felt more important than their user name, so I wanted to wait until they'd dealt with their COI, OWN, you're-not-the-boss-of-Wikipedia issues first. It's hard to clear up new users misunderstandings about their role on Wikipedia w/o heading into Bitesville. And I'd given them much to consider. Adding a user name block on top of all the rest might have been too much. Depending on their response, someone other than I (hint, hint, talkpage watchers) might leave them a note explaining that their user name is problematical. Also, I don't think misleadname applies. More like botname. I don't think anyone really believes they are Green Lantern, though it is a lovely prequel to the COI, OWN, YNTBOW issues. If you read the edit summary of their first, and at the time of my message to them, on;y only edit-- well, it's an eye full. An I think those issues are far more disruptive than thinking they are a bot. No one reading that edit summary would confuse them with a bot, though a number of other nouns come to mind. Something to look into when I'm more a wake.-- Deepfriedokra 11:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what have they done with Wikipedia:BOTNAME. All this consolidation and downsizing is disconcerting.-- Deepfriedokra 11:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129:Thanks for the lovely and unique lampe. I shall hang it over my schäslong. In these days, so lacking in refinement, it is so hard to find furnishings with distinction and taste. A certain je ne se quoi.-- Deepfriedokra 11:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response - and apologies if you felt admonished - that was not my intention . When I saw the report on WP:UAA my first thought was "what's wrong with Green Lantern?", and only later realised the issue was actually "bot", so I did wonder whether I was not the only one to lured into that trap. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Hopefully we can shepard her past the shoals of COI and the Maelstrom of personal knowledge.-- Deepfriedokra 21
49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Triviality[edit]

[1] conduct dispute maybe "content dispute" instead? --JBL (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freudian slip? Fixed.-- Deepfriedokra 14:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my username and connection to martin.[edit]

Hello, I have noticed your concern and would like to still have my username as green lantern, if you have any name suggestions to put at the end to make it unique, much obliged. second, I would like to keep editing and fixing the martin nodell wiki, yes, i could have suggested and edit, but i wanted to do this correct and detailed, as the page is not very "descriptive", i am a family member of the nodell's and would like to do this for the people of the community, and for the 80th anniversary of green lantern as this year marks it.

If this is all possible, we would be very thankful.


Sincerely - A Family Member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green lantern bot (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Green lantern bot: Thanks for your note. You'll need to adhere to WP:COI, of course. Any edits/changes would need to be well sourced, not personal knowledge. AFAIK, fictional character usernames are fine. I can rename to Green Lantern if you like.
SO long as any changes are well sourced, there should be no problem. Just be prepared to support any challenged content changes with policy and guidelines-- and "reliable, verifiable, independent sources unconnected with the subject." Personal memoirs and knowledge are WP:primary sources and WP:secondary sources are much preferred. You will also need to avoid the appearance of whitewashing or removal of unfavorable content that is well-sourced. Well any sourced content, for that matter. It is usually hard to write neutrally about family members, but I suspect you will be able to. Make small, incremental changes, so that you don't wind up with wholesale reversions and frustration. -- Deepfriedokra 17:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Green lantern bot: Drat. Green lantern is taken.-- Deepfriedokra 18:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do not know how to reply back to comments yet.[edit]

so if you see this, thank you, and if you find a similar username that would be great, if not it is not the end of the world over a username.


Sincerely - A Family Member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green lantern bot (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My requests for page protection comment[edit]

Thank you for letting me know! I'm still fairly new, and I'm doing okay on my own, but a little guidance now and then helps... Okay, i'm rambling. I'll stop now.The Evil Sith Kitten 23:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azabon awkward undeletion request[edit]

Hey mate, I recently starting writing a new article for the stimulant nootropic Azabon, and I realized an article on the topic had previously been written and deleted. I only just now thought of the fact that I should have requested its undeletion instead of just starting on a new article as I did. Is there any way I can see the text from the old article? It would be a great help with writing the new article. Thanks! Enix150 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Enix150: Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, it was deleted as WP:G5-- created by a banned user. Looking at it, your version looks better. Much better. Nothing useful at all in the deleted version..- Deepfriedokra 23:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey![edit]

I'm new to submitting. How can I write the Evolus pharma company better? I'm not sure why it's being marketed to deletion. Can I enlist someone to help me edit? Dgranite (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgranit: Thanks for trying to help build Wikipedia, the world's largest free content encyclopedia. You would need to omit all the promotional stuff, especially anything sourced to the subject. Please see WP:CORP. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." "Focusing," in the same paragraph as other promotional catchphrases, like "goal ... become . . . diversified" give it a promotional tone. Phrases like "Born out of", "strategy and organization are centered on," and "provides a unique opportunity" are very promotional. A more thorough list of possibly problematic text can be found at User:Deepfriedokra/promo. Hope this helps.-- Deepfriedokra 03:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Draft:Yeap ken joo[edit]

Hi DFO,

This appears to me to be a Google Translate version of Platform cooperative, which has no de.wp article.

Just for a second there I thought "Plattform-Genossenschaft" might be German for "Search Engine Optimization". (I've often thought about studying German, but I doubt there would be any courses for people who know what "Über die vierfache Wurzel des Satzes vom zureichenden Grunde" means but wouldn't be able to ask for directions to the Reichstag (possibly already wearing a Spider-Man costume) in German. Of course, if I was in Germany, it would be easy: I'd just ask in English.)

Not sure what to do with draft, to be honest.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58:Du hast Recht! It's word-for-word what I got when I ran it through google translate. Interestingly, a Korean sounding name with a German google of an English article on English Wiki. I went over it and it looked accurate once I thought it through, though I learned a few new words. ANy TPW's-- are we being punned? Not sure how to pronounce that username. I can ask Entschuldigen. Wo ist das Reichstag, bitte?" "Über die vierfache Wurzel des Satzes vom zureichenden Grunde" I had to look up. Now that's interesting. A reasonable translate for an existing article got G11'd. heh, heh. That's OK. "They can kill you, but they won't eat you." (You're too tough) ((Old German saying my brother got from a guy who was a 14yo in air defence in Germany during WWII)). -- Deepfriedokra 18:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no![edit]

Yet another friendly talk page gnome has arrived! You now have approximately 346 gnomes in your collection!

--MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to contribute with interactive animation?[edit]

Hi, I would like to contribute to Wikipedia with interactive animations. They live on a web page and use JavaScript to create animated pictures reacting to user feedback. An example is https://gianmarco-todesco.github.io/epicycles/ that has been specifically created to illustrate the page Deferent_and_epicycle.

The animation can not be uploaded as an animated GIF, because the animated GIF is not an interactive medium.

On the other side, I can not add an external link, because - apparently - it is considered "advertising" or "self-promoting" and the link is promptly removed.

Is there a proper procedure to submit a link?

Gianmarco-todesco (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a pretty good illustration of the concept, I must say. EEng 10:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Thankyou! Gianmarco-todesco (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:NonsensicalSystem allowed me to restore the link. Gianmarco-todesco (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gianmarco-todesco: Yep, my mistake. Sorry N0nsensical.system(err0r?)(.log) 10:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC):@NonsensicalSystem: Never mind! And thankyou for your help! Gianmarco-todesco (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

I wasn't annoyed at you in any way when responding at WP:ANI this morning. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I think the dispenser of annoyance is pretty clear. -- Deepfriedokra 15:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is NOT a marketing venue" edit[edit]

This edit appears directed at me. I'm sure it's directed at the same editor I was talking to, but that editor may not see it that way. Consider pinging, outdenting, or making other clarification.

Also, thanks for chiming in on this thread. Two voices are stronger than one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"@Davidw: OK. Tohugh I think we all know who the UPE on that page is.-- Deepfriedokra 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the community has shown remarkable AGF and not biting with this user.-- Deepfriedokra 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It helped a lot that the some of editor's first edits and the editor's edits in the last hour were productive. It also helped a lot that the person appears to be using a real name. I say "it helps" assuming it is a real name and not a joe-job-like false-flag. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PunjabCinema007[edit]

Last Friday you put a 72-hour block on PunjabCinema007 for disruptive edits. This morning he threatened me on my Talk page. I'm not sure what he/she means by "walls closing in," but I perceive it as a threat of some kind. Can something be done about this? Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chisme: If the ANI is still up, report there. This looks like a resumption of the behavior that lead to his block. Post a talk quote to make it stand out, If it is a legal threat, start a new thread referencing the old thread. No awake yet. Work nights.-- Deepfriedokra 18:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I posted something on the ANI using a blockquote as you suggested. I'm not sure I have the wherewithal to start a new ANI thread. Be sure to get your sleep! Chisme (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You saw what he did, doubling down on his feeble threat. Can Wikipedia ban him? Chisme (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if no other admin takes action, I will take action. I did mention it at ANI. I left a note on your talk..-- Deepfriedokra 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Deepfriedokra for all your attention in this matter. Chisme (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Deepfriedokra, you've got the patience of the saint of saints going through all of this steadily, without judgement and asking for review of admin action, but still willing to lower the boom when lines get crossed. Heck of an example for how to handle a rough situation that most would have just WP:RBI'd and keep whistling. Ravensfire (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: I tried to assume good faith, but they just couldn't stop attacking other editors. Then it became a matter of selling them all the rope they needed. I also needed it to be clear that this was a community decision, not just one rogue admin.-- Deepfriedokra 22:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Praxidicae (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Deepfriedokra. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Bishonen | talk 15:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again?-- Deepfriedokra 18:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fearonewhohasnothingtolose[edit]

I'm concerned that the default GAB message for their unblock request might mislead them to think that drafting another request would be sensible. As this is a checkuser block, so an ordinary unblock request cannot be granted, anyway. Such is my understanding, at least. Regards, El_C 02:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)  Done-- Deepfriedokra 02:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My essay name is terrible[edit]

You have any ideas for what I could rename Wikipedia:Om_nom_nom_nom to? After seeing it happen first-hand (and luckily arriving in time), I ended up putting my attention on it again, so a name that's not so terrible would be welcome. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 04:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We eat our own?-- Deepfriedokra 04:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Suggestions?-- Deepfriedokra 05:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to discern what this essay was about, I consulted the Google Oracle, which informed me [2] Om Nomming means To make out with someone without the tongue. Much more enjoyable because tongues are nasty bacteria-filled sponges that get in the way when kissing passionately. I'm still recovering from that. EEng 06:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, Well, name's even worse now. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 13:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help. EEng 16:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're really too nice yourself sometimes...[edit]

MrRight2020 was not being entirely honest with you... Yunshui 雲水 08:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had my suspicions about MrRight. Like his predecessor, he liked to (redacted. Does Macy tell Gimbel/ This page is heavily watched.) You have a great deal of patience and forbearance, qualities in short supply these days. Chisme (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well.-- Deepfriedokra 17:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is to improve my AGF and eliminate BITE, despite my intuitive or emotional responses.-- Deepfriedokra 17:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This tweet may be of interest to you. It's ironic: The man who paid his PR firm to doctor his Wikipedia page is "happy to share proof of paid trolls and the Wikipedia pages they targeted." Chisme (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the WMF does nothing.-- Deepfriedokra 01:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teh WMF may not be aware of it (isn't there an email address for UPE?), just as Jimbo probably wasn't aware of the mess of UPE around Chahal's article. Of course, Chahal isn't aware of the scammers that do pull some really unsavory stuff. Ravensfire (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Chahal has expressed sufficient interest in me that he is probably watching this talk page. At any rate, I would have liked less emphasis on the negative content and more emphasis (with reliable sourcing) on the not negative side. Last I looked, experienced users were thrashing it out. Or threshing it out. My user page has my clumsily worded opinion on negative BLP. I live in hope.-- Deepfriedokra 02:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – February 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [3]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible typo to fix[edit]

Please check the title of the User talk:Aek973#edit earring section. --CiaPan (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMVHO it should be warring, not earring. --CiaPan (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --CiaPan (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I have User:192.135.91.19 asking for help here. I am looking up to an admin. Should this be reported? --TFFfan (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal 28596[edit]

Hi,

May I ask what's happening with this appeal please?-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't decide and released in hopes of someone else deciding. How do you feel about the appeal?-- Deepfriedokra 18:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@5 albert square:-- Deepfriedokra 20:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know as I don't know what the blocking admin said about everything.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had released the appeal before I saw NinjaRobotPirate's most recent response, but I just looked and it is not favorable. As they've appealed to ArbCom, I guess the ball is in their court. (This is why I let go of the thing. I was leaning in favor of unblocking, but didn't want to barge in. I suppose as it's a CU block it's not something I should mess with. -- Deepfriedokra 23:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno, NinjaRobotPirate, and 5 albert square: Seeking feedback.-- Deepfriedokra 01:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's Tseung kang 99? See Special:Diff/938270607 for my thoughts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this contribution[edit]

Hello. I found this contribution at tha article knife. It looks violent, so if not already, can you delete this contribuition so the general public cannot find it. Thanks. --TFFfan (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)  Done. I got this. El_C 01:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

100K and beyond
Thank you for your tireless contributions and commitment to the project. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear! El_C 02:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aek973[edit]

Howdy hello! You had previously helped out with Aek973. I'm afraid things have taken a turn for the worse, and could use at least a short block to get them to see sense, or a long one for NOTHERE. See [4], and [5] from today, their only edits after a 6 day hiatus. If you'd rather not be the one to use the banhammer, lemme know and I can just ask again at ANI, but thought I'd try here first. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thread was archived too early. (We need to stop archiving threads that are unresolved.) Indeffed. I need to tell someone we are enemies of Russia. Per WP:ADMINACCT, any admin may review/reverse at their discretion.-- Deepfriedokra 19:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, Thanks for taking care of that distasteful business, "enemy of Russia". And I agree, there seems to be quite a group of folks at ANI who are far too excited to archive things...perhaps Levivich and Creffett can come up with some kind of BurmaShave style message to remind folks about archiving... CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek, au contraire, that thread was auto-archived because it was inactive for 3 days. I think editors who manually archive are only manually archiving threads that have been closed for 24+ hrs (though I haven't verified that, I just thought that was the usual practice). Couldn't figure out how to put all that into a burma shave. Levivich 19:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, Ah, thanks for the clarification :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If russia is your native land
And Wiki articles are out off hand
And incivility is your brand
With an indef block you may be banned

Burma shave.-- Deepfriedokra 20:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! DFO I don't know if you've been aquainted yet with {{burma-shave}} but this is definitely one worth templifying. Levivich 20:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IF RUSSIA IS YOUR NATIVE LAND
& WIKI ARTICLES ARE OUT OF HAND
& INCIVILITY IS YOUR BRAND
WITH AN INDEF BLOCK
YOU MAY BE BANNED
Burma-shave

Cool-- Deepfriedokra 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed ping[edit]

I forgot to sign, when I pinged you while responding. So here is a note. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Gurbaksh Chahal -- The Saga Continues[edit]

You wrote on my Talk page, "Complex situation. You need to email Trust and Safety and ArbCom. However, this in no way addresses your conflict of interest and your' lack of neutrality." What is their email address? And yes, I could have done a better job maintaining neutrality. Chisme (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chisme:

  • arbcom-en@wikimedia.org
  • arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  • ca@wikimedia.org
  • @Winged Blades of Godric:. I will be partial blocking you from the related articles. Anyone not on Wikibreak needs to follow up at AN/ANI. Any admin can reverse me if they choose. I likely will not be available till Tuesday.-- Deepfriedokra 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so much for my Wikibreak.-- Deepfriedokra 21:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, Maybe set the "trying" parameter? :) —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 21:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This is it, y'all.-- Deepfriedokra 21:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hey Deepfriedokra, can you explain a bit more what brought on this block? Is it that you think Chisme's accusations hold water (if so, in what way)? Or is there some other private type information you're aware of that you can't share regarding this? I'm a tad lost on this move though as it stands. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: Yes.Yes and no. @Chisme:'s talk page I think has the details. And WBG's talk page is full of instructions. This all needs to be threshed out. Now at ANI or via ArbCom. Chisme needs to explain her accusations. WBG needs to provide answers.-- Deepfriedokra 21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my accusations in anWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as you suggested. Chisme (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Wishing you a speedy recovery. And webmd says that there is lack of evidence that cough medicines work. So considering the side effects use them wisely. DBigXrayᗙ 17:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the chance of being repetitive, hope you feel better soon, Deepfriedokra. Rest well. El_C 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist?[edit]

I definitely don't want to be in the position of offering you egg-sucking tips, but you just likened a user to a specific, prolific sockmaster - is that a serious accusation? For all I know you're right, but it seems a bit 'aspersiony' unless you're going to back it up in some way. Hope you don't take this the wrong way - I have a great regard for the work you do. GirthSummit (blether) 18:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, God. But if you were here for Karmafist, it sounds like his ideas. Don't mean to cast aspersions. I mean I imagine someone one could come up with the same stuff independently. Will cross post. to ANI.-- Deepfriedokra 18:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't here for Karmafist, so you definitely know what you're talking about more than I do - I was just worried that a statement like that (from an admin, at ANI) could follow someone around. The subject of that thread has a very particular style of communication - are there any other similarities, or is it just the ideas? GirthSummit (blether) 19:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Knackers - just noticed you still have your wikibreak banner on, and it's not Tuesday yet - feel free not to bother replying to that and to get on with whatever you're supposed to be doing! GirthSummit (blether) 19:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Where'd it go. Now I don;t remember. Probably just a coincidence. Oh, some of the syntax and the whole elected government thing. Now with town halls. It was long ago. I;m sure just someone with bright ideas.-- Deepfriedokra 19:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Took a sick day yesterday, and I'm awake now. Underestimated the power of Dextromethorphan. -- Deepfriedokra 19:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, never tried it, but glad it's working for you. One of the kids in my class gave me a vomiting bug last weekebd - haven't felt so rough for years! Hope you're feeling better soon. GirthSummit (blether) 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My punishment[edit]

I consider you to be one of the few not against me. I got sucked in to defending Caroline on the talk page. I was not "overwrought", but did not back away when the big guns beared down on me. I should have moved away from the killing zone. Wallie (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AN[edit]

You have been accused of hiding your talk page links in your sign, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_proposal. Although I followed your sign link and arrived here. Just thought you should know. How is your health now ? --DBigXrayᗙ 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: J'ACCUSE! You too have hidden the talk page link within your signature!! And quite stylishly, I might add.-- Deepfriedokra 21:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

, Yes I know, thank you. Fortunately for me I was overlooked as I am not an admin and admin bashing is a thing these days, especially while doing some good old whataboutery. In my defence, I merely followed this great WP:Signature Tutorial, which suggested it as a way to customize sign and I being a fan of short signatures quite liked it. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Thanks, always a pleasure.-- Deepfriedokra 22:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My internal censor[edit]

is not working. Please let me know if something slips out that should not.-- Deepfriedokra 22:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry if your internal censor isn't working; the (censored) edit filter we installed for you seems to be working just fine. [6] – Levivich (lulz) 01:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

signature[edit]

Following up on the adminstrators' noticeboard discussion that mentioned your signature: there are some accessibility issues with your signature. The colour contrast ratio for the last two parts fail the WCAG criteria for accessible contrast. Not using descriptive link text makes it harder for those using screen readers to know the destination of the links. Even for those able to read the text themselves, hovering is not something everyone can do easily (such as those with essential tremor), and touch devices like phones typically don't provide a way to hover. Just some issues to bear in mind, especially as an administrator who may want to make it easy to be contacted, and to set a standard for others to follow. isaacl (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:64.183.42.238[edit]

Thanks for discussing with the person at that IP I'd blocked. It occurs to me that because of my tendency to check AIV before I log off for the night, this might happen again and I have absolutely no issue with you or anyone else unblocking at your discretion in that kind of situation; I've added a note on my user page to that effect! Thanks again. ~ mazca talk 13:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100,000th edit![edit]

100,000th edit award
Hello D.Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 03:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was here for the same! Also, I recently changed my signature from
—usernamekiran(talk)
to a very basic:
—usernamekiran (talk)
I see you've also followed the suit. But I really like the colour combination of your previous sig. What are your thoughts about following the other suite that I had suggested to you recently? Anyways, I hope you merrily stay around for a very long time, regardless the edit count. See you around fella —usernamekiran (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksDeepfriedokra (talk)
Congrats on the 100,000th edit, Deepfriedokra! That's 16.666 times (or so) my current edit count @-@ —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksDeepfriedokra (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

FWIW, I really liked your old signature. It was very recognisable, the links were easy to use, and in a text-only environment, it added an air of personality that I had come to know and appreciate. I know that there was recently a discussion at AN about a problematic sig, but that was about a user putting a whole sentence of plain text, which was a little confusing and had to be 'read around'. Yours was a million miles from that - I liked it, I miss it, I hope you'll return to it (or, at the very least, you'll render the text in the old colour combination, which I've come to associate with you and can spot easily on a talk page if I want to quickly identify a sensible comment). Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here. The old color sig was quite easy to spot, making it trivial to find your comments in a sea of others. This is the advantage to unique sigs imo. I've considered adding a little flair to mine to make it findable too. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, I would concur. I was able to associate DFO with DCK without going through the logs, due to his sign. user:Isaacl pointed about the golden colour having less contrast, may be a darker shade of golden will make it acceptable to all. TBH although I liked the colour combination, the golden was indeed a bit hard to read.
The AN thread was closed with pointers to get WP:SIGN strengthened. I think something must be done to prevent the addition of these text of slogans/jokes/phrases into sign. They are all lame and even if they aren't how many times can you really laugh at one. (Use Flooded was another example who at one point of time added a phrase, and I am sure there are more) User:LakesideMiners seems to be unsure how/where to start this process. May be someone experienced can take the lead and initiate the discussion at a suitable location. DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, Yah, my basic idea is that you should avoid having long phrases in your signature, like imo at least, my talk page link is clear and newbie friendly, but is not stupidly long either. I will change it if asked tho. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 13:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with mountain guy. Your signature, and JBW's old username were cool. On the other note, I changed my signature to reduce the code. But it seems like my signature has started (or increased) a trend to use the lowercase letters lol. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
spmepne, I don't remember who, has a talk link indicated by, schrei mich an-- shriek at me.Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, looks like the cough medicine is yet to wear off? DBigXrayᗙ 15:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Artistha[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:Artistha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 1 March 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify?[edit]

So per the promotional username guidelines we should only report usernames that use real names or corp names when their edits actually start promotion. So when I look at [website can be found here] for MaceMusic, or the submitted afc [[7]] for Rowan Richie? Not sure where you were coming from on those two. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the user name claptrap, a personal user name is OK, even if it is the name of their website. I have a fairly good myrealname.com site that I could use to source articles. I'd get shot down as I'm not a reliable source (per Wikipedia) and it's all self-published. If I added links to it to every sci-fi related article I could find, that would be spam. So it is possible to spam without violateingthe user name policy. Or I could create a userpage about my site (of which I'm a little proud) and that would be U5 and G11 depending on how I phrased it. There was a rather intense discussion with one of our colleagues on a user talk page. It was the user's real nick and their personal website. That colleague was pretty irate about the whole unblock discussion, and I think he was right. At any rate, I think the policy on user name blocks is pretty clear. WP:CORPNAME's are right out. If those users add promotional content, they are usually hard blocked. If constructive, soft blocked. (Intriguingly, "ACME company" would be not acceptable, but JohnatACME comapny" is fine. On English Wikipedia. I here the Germans are less stuffy.) Famous person user names are generally soft block edwith directions to contact OTRS if they wish to affirm they are that person. Multi person names, Like "Jack and Jill" are generally discussed. Hope that answeres your questions, I'm being called away quite voluably.Deep fried okra talk 00:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: (the ping, ze is broken.Deep fried okra talk 00:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were right with clear as mud because while you make good points I don't think they apply in this case. If I was guessing you are referring to Shuminweb? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket:Welp, the instructions at the top of WP:UAA say, Real names are permitted, except when the editor implies they are someone other than themselves, such as impersonating a notable living person.

and Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names says

The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional:

  • Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. TownvilleWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see § Usernames implying shared use below. (Usernames which represent the subject of a biographical article are not considered promotional; see § Stage names)
  • Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and "Example.com") that promote a commercial web page and don't simply identify a person. While plain domain names (without .com, .co.kr, etc.) are sometimes acceptable, such as when the purpose is simply to identify the user as a person, they are inappropriate if they promote a commercial Web page.

So while the policy as a whole can be confusing, it's clearer if one breaks it down. The issues with with aforementioned have to do with WP:COI and WP:Autobio and WP:Spam, and that is where they require guidance. Fortunately, TWINKLE contains a welcome for spmminess and the coi and autobio templates are pretty good at AGF and not bite. I try to educate when I can. I certainly made a couple of errors when I started , and the welcome with the guidance kept me going. Hope that helps.Deep fried okra talk 10:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see now he is WP:PAID Left him the appropriate guidance.Deep fried <

/span>okra talk 11:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that yesterday, more of the concern here is that the comment I linked to is that the account was operated by the CAA agent and not the actual person who's name is on the account. But if you have reviewed it and felt comfortable with it I will of course trust your judgement. Thanks for the response. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[[8]] Talk page stalker perhaps? I didn't ask past my last post here and especially after saying I trusted your judgement I dropped the stick :). It did at least give me consolation I wasn't 100 percent off base though! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: I noted at the UAA report the PAIDness of the user and asked if anyone wanted to famous user name block under WP:IMPERSONATE. I thought it a bit of a stretch to call the subject "famous", but not everyone is as squeamish as I. The user has not edited since contesting the deletion of their user page by revealing their PAIDness. At the risk of snideness, I could speculate that they are now conferring with the home office. They've had an opportunity to comply with our policies and have received ample communication and education, so it's hard to claim the block was bitey. We must be careful to not bite new users.Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New sig[edit]

Looking good! Now I don't have to turn my sig your old colours as a protest. :) GirthSummit (blether) 08:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still considering changing the talk page pipe to Schrei mich an! Or maybe Sinn und Form bekommt Verstand. (Rammstein)Deep fried okra talk 11:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your new signature[edit]

Could you change the color of the talk link in your signature? It looks like normal text, so I was initially a bit confused by it. InvalidOStalk 15:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, though it eludes me as to how the word "talk" in the middle of my signature could be mistaken for anything but a talk link.Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 15:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My purely aesthetic suggestion is to set it off a bit with some punctuation: parenthesize it, or have some other form of separator. Just a personal preference, though; feel free to ignore it or do something else. Thanks very much for taking my previous feedback under consideration. isaacl (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature has misnested <b>...</b> tags, which causes Missing end tag and Multiple unclosed formatting tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep </span><span style="color:red">fried </span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span></b>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra]] : Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

to

<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep </span><span style="color:red">fried </span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]]</b> [[User talk:Deepfriedokra]] : Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

—Anomalocaris (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It never rains but it pours, apparently. EEng 20:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 29314[edit]

They can't appeal on their talk page, tpa was revoked yesterday. I'll close the ticket out, but I'm sure they'll be back in short order. It's either trolling or CIR.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Deepfriedokra. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I saw you added a bunch of UTRS unblock requests to talk pages, and I wanted to thank you for taking the time to do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopping vandal[edit]

Hi, I see that you configured pending changes at PBS NewsHour. While that may be effective at that article, it appears that the problems there have been perpetrated by the same IP hopping vandal who also vandalised multiple articles adding bad links, violated WP:REDBIO, added circular redirects and links to disambiguation pages and keeps changing |last_aired=present to the last date that an episode aired (last_aired is supposed to remain present until a series has ended). The anonymous editor has edited using multiple IPs, most recently 2601:8c:467f:4e20:8d7a:e269:f4b9:8d8d, 2601:8C:467F:4E20:C0B3:AA2A:DFF9:7594 and 2601:8c:467f:4e20:8d06:be47:b138:5eea. Multiple warnings were left at User talk:2601:8C:467F:4E20:C0B3:AA2A:DFF9:7594 but after that, the editor changed IPs. Sadly, a very few of his/her edits have been valid but the vast majority have not. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kuiet[edit]

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You unblocked and renamed this user, previously "Kike Korrector", on the AGF basis that their former username was "carrying the hateful banner proudly" (to quote User:jpgordon). I would be grateful if you would review this in light of their subsequent contributions. I am minded to re-block them as simply an unusually eloquent racist. CIreland (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they lied to get unblocked, please report at ANI and ping the other admins in that discussion. Or better yet, feel free to go ahead and block first. The unblock was conditional on them not being a racist big mouth. The racism belies the "carrying the banner" rhetoric. I am on Wikibreak and just responding to an email notice.
Damn wasn't logged in. @CIreland: --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 02:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Today I Requested a Pending changes reviewer on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer .Please see [[9]].and granted Permission pending changes reviewer. (Thanks for taking) Vivek ji123 (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago[edit]

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[[[reply]

Precious[edit]

politicians

Thank you for quality articles such as Matt Hudson, Joseph Abruzzo and Hazelle P. Rogers, for rescuing at AfC, for fighting spam, unfit usernames, advertisement and other vandalism from the beginning in 2006, - user with a delicious name, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2370 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to request end of my topic ban?[edit]

Hello, last August I was blocked and then, following a discussion in which you were involved, I was unblocked on condition of respecting a topic ban on Catalan ethnicity. You said at the time that the topic ban was "To be reviewed at WP:AN after six months of editing constructively". Now that the six-month period has expired, I would like to request the formal removal of that topic ban, not really because I am eager to edit about ethnicity (I am pretty busy with Covid-19 on the Spanish-language Wikipedia) but just to put this episode behind me.

My problem is that I have no idea about how to request the end of the topic ban. I checked at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions but can't find my username there. Perhaps the topic ban has just automatically expired and there is no need to request anything? I would appreciate your advice on this. --Hispalois (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask for input from @RexxS: as he performed the block/unblock. I'm busy COVIDing too, though in real life. We'll need to reference the ANI discussion, see what was said there, and then formulate a request for a removal of the TBAN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hispalois: as I understand it, you voluntarily agreed to a topic ban to be reviewed at AN after 6 months, and that was sufficient to convince me to unblock you on 5 September 2019. This was not a community- or ArbCom-imposed involuntary topic ban, so your talk page history and your block log are the only records of its existence. I recommend you should do as agreed and make a post at WP:AN asking for an end to the topic ban that you agreed to as an unblock condition. I'll ping PhilKnight to see if he has anything to add.
I must say that I'm disappointed by edits like this in September and this in November, as I seem to recall it was edits similar to the latter that got you into trouble in the first place. Still, it was Basque, not Catalan nationality that you were removing, so no breach of the topic ban, but I would have thought you'd be keen to avoid the possibility of further conflict in those sort of areas. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: Thanks. I haven't read the ANI thread. I'll try today.I'd be inclined to remove the TBAN if there have been no recent problems. @Hispalois: Some might say you just shifted the problem to a different area. Be prepared to reassure that the tendency is quite in the past. Sorry, y'all. Resounding headache and work-related distractions. Attended my first staff meeting yesterday via Zoom or some such. Here in the Sunny South, hospitals are standing by to be over-run. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original ANI post was here --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, sorry to hear that you are ill and best wishes for your recovery. Here in Belgium we have been locked down for two weeks already and one gets used to it. Thanks to both for the indications. I did not know the difference between a voluntary and an involuntary topic ban — English Wikipedia is complicated.
What I can say is that I have scrupulously respected the topic ban, and I don't see the issue with the two edits mentioned by RexxS. None was controversial or raised any issue with any editor. Cristóbal de Haro is no longer believed to have been Portuguese or Flemish by modern historiography, I only corrected outdated information. Regarding my edit in Andrés de Urdaneta, I see how it could be misinterpreted as Spanish nationalist bias. That was not at all my intention. I edited that article mainly to add the image of that sailor's signature, which I had photographed at an exhibition. I saw several data that were at odds with the biography recently published in a recent reference work, so I went on to fix those. Regarding the "nationality" (slippery word, particularly for the early modern age!), I always prefer to state it based on the polities of the time that a person lived in, not on 21st-century ones. For example, Sebastian Cabot is, in my opinion, correctly called Venetian whereas Giovanni da Verrazzano is incorrectly called "Italian" (he was a citizen of Florence, Italy did not exist yet as a state). --Hispalois (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I do understand there's a tension between a topic being somewhat related to your topic ban and the areas where you edit because that's where your expertise lies. I would now be willing to vacate the topic ban for my part (i.e. I won't take action against you for editing constructively in the area) without bothering AN. My only reservation is that the AN part was Deepfriedokra's request, so I think that if he is willing to vacate it as well, you should be free of the restrictions without having to have another bunch of admins review it. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hispalois and RexxS: Ok with ending TBAN. I'm willing to give it a try w/o the formality of AN. AN could be either under-participated, or fraught with side discussions, or both. It could drag on without a conclusion and take a long time to close. Should we ask other admins from the discussion on the talk page if they agree with ending TBAN? My windows of availability are closing. So please proceed w/o me if I'm not around. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the proposed solution (ending the topic ban without bothering AN) is alright and will save time for all of us. --Hispalois (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunsara Taylor speedy deletion request[edit]

I am commenting on your page because you removed the request for a speedy deletion without stating the cause, saying anything in talk, and failed to notice I had already created the discussion you suggested I create.

Your reasoning: "decline speedy. Article & subject do not meet [[WP:G11] or WP:A7. Please open discussion at WP:AfD if you so desire" You cited a failure to meet WP:G11 or WP:A7 without any specificity after I went to great lengths to detail the reasoning for the speedy deletion in "talk"

Here is the policies you citied: "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Alternatives to deletion). A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible."

  1. I went through all revs, all had the same issue. I researched all cited items plus hours of my own searching to see if this person could ever meet the notability requirements with a rework. The answer was "no"

Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors.

  1. I did this

G11 Criteria: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopaedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc."

  1. as I stated in the discussion, all of the materials this person cited fall into two categories. 1. Self published promotional material. 2. citations which, upon following, does not mention the person at all or anything to do with them. Here is an example:

"Sunsara Taylor is a political activist who is a supporter of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP),[1]" what is this citation establishing this sentence? an amazon book description that doesn't mention her, she wasn't a contributor of, she had absolutely nothing to do with. This is consistent with everything in this page.

A7 Criteria: "A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) Shortcut WP:A7 Further information: Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content,[8] or organized event[9] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[10] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about products, books, films, TV programmes, albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), software, or other creative works, nor to entire species of animals. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and any article with a blatantly false claim may be submitted for speedy deletion as a hoax instead. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

  1. this I went to great lengths to cover point by point and this directly applies in this case. For example
  2. This applies to any article about a real person,
    1. this qualifies here as this is one person
  3. that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.
    1. there is no indication of their notability ir significance. in fact the article goes into great detail as to their lack of notability. it consistently calls them a "follower" or a "supporter". it cites no articles published, no books published, no statements that make them notable, it shows no leadership positions of any form in any organization, it cites no examples of policy goals they have achieved, in fact it fails to cite a single achievement of any sort. The only notability I was able to find was they were interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Well I've been interviewed by Tucker Carlson as well, should I create a page about me? is that the criteria?
  4. This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about products, books, films, TV programmes, albums
    1. qualifies here
  5. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and any article with a blatantly false claim may be submitted for speedy deletion as a hoax instead.
    1. this qualifies here. in fact I have already mentioned examples above about how the cited links do not in any way shape or form support the statements they are purporting to support.
  6. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
    1. I did this, I followed all policy and exhaustively researched and explained why. You've reverted the nomination, apparently, without any reasoning I can find. Please renominate the page and put it in queue for deletion.

2600:6C50:6700:4D9:4E4:F434:9832:6D51 (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have no trouble gaining consensus at WP:AFD. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 02:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

upe firm[edit]

There is no point in talking about our policies with this user. They're part of a paid, black hat seo firm. They knew full well what they were doing. Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings me to the next question. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: Yeah, I see it in the subtext. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh[edit]

Heh, you're welcome 😄 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace protection request[edit]

Hey Deepfriedokra, hope you are well and safe! Would it be possible to semi-protect User:LuK3/ACC welcome per WP:UPROT? I use it for welcoming users from ACC. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing in Rishi Kapoor[edit]

Persistent vandalism – Heavy IP edit disruption due to a recent incident. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amkgp: Please post to WP:RFPP if you have not done so. Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 04:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, Done at WP:RFPP but disruption is still on. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unikel and Gavakyan[edit]

For what it's worth, I am 99%+ certain that they are two different people who are coordinating off-wiki, both of whom have a COI with Victoria Unikel, rather than one person socking. For once, the users in question have connected themselves to real people on-wiki, so I can actually explain my hypothesis without violating the outing rules! Unikel is almost certainly the subject of the article, given the username. Gavakyan explicitly links themselves to "Gene Avakayan," website and all, and that website happens to mention that he is part of a company called VUGA Enterprises...created by Victoria Unikel and Gene Avakyan. Yup. creffett (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Creffett: Thanks. Did not see the VUGA connection. I just assumed it was two people coordinating efforts with a COI. On the talk page, he left a reference to WP:WIR, so I left a message at WT:WIR that was reverted by Montanabw. Looks like straight-forward self promotion to me, but I thought if she was a WiR, I should let those people know that one of their articles had gotten of to a bad start. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


A cup of tea for you![edit]

No idea where you went, but welcome back just the same! creffett (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS[edit]

If anyone would like to help migrate templates from old to new, there are instructions at WT:UTRS. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eswartini[edit]

especially Fabergé egg's --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

::I like eggs. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

Deep, I want to say that you look that you started the Eswartini. The Eswartini is when I wanted to RFP Eswatini, you declined it and then semiprotected it, we look in a war, because Eswandalism prevents non sysop users to edit the page, and a page of 70k bytes can be indefinitely fully protected. Oh... never do the wrong things. SiSwati Swazi (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SiSwati Swazi: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I carefully balanced the need to prevent disruption against the need to allow editing. Full protection would allow only admins to edit. That does not further Wikipedia's goal of building the world's largest free content encyclopedia. Semi protection will prevent non autoconfirmed editors from editing, but there did not appear to be any constructive edits by non autoconfirmed editors in the past month.The size of a page is not relevant to page protection. Only the need to prevent disruption or vandalism. Of what war do you speak? If Eswandalism prevents non sysop edits, then I cannot see it as a good thing. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: I love full protections. It was better Wikipedia in 2001. You must agree & rules the eswandalism. --SiSwati Swazi (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you must change the protection to INDEFI-FULL-ITE. You do not agree the Eswartini law. --SiSwati Swazi (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Errr. Negatory. That's a big no-can-do. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in early january 2016 an extended confirmed user vandalized the page Artsakh, that at that time was named Nagorno Karabach until 7 January 2017. This is an example, so another page you must protect infinitely full is Swazi language.

A encyclopedia with 2018 thousand admins, of almost 4 million users, and with a maximum of the Icelandic Wikipedia pages (it always is updated) would agrade me. --SiSwati Swazi (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Soviet Russia eggs 👍 Like you. El_C 03:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible revdel needed[edit]

Hi, Deepfriedokra. I hope you are doing well. I recently removed these comments from a talk page as WP:FORUM. However, there is also a lot of random, unsourced, and seemingly spurious statements about living people. I'm not sure of exactly the standard needed to delete something, but you have always been helpful and so I wanted to get your opinion (or any other admin who may be watching this page). I figured I would ask you about it first, but I can also take it to one of the admins listed at WP:REVDEL category page if that would be better. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP protection[edit]

Did you accidentally indefinitely fully protect WP:RFPP? Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Yes. I think it is fixed? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who protects the protection page? creffett (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's back to being indef move protected only. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Creffett: someone pretty ipso facto --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 14:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

protection from vandalism[edit]

Thank you for protection of the page Suffragettes as the vandalism was becoming far too often. I wonder if you would consider doing the same thing for Alice Paul one of the suffragettes whose page is also attacked.

Apologies if this is the wrong way to make this request. Thank you Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaybeesquared: Not sure it's enough to justify page protection at this time. For a more timely response, you an report at WP:RFPP. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 02:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS RfC[edit]

Here --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 18:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Yunshui[edit]

Hello, Deepfriedokra. You have new messages at Elana Barker's talk page.
Message added 07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Yunshui 雲水 07:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice[edit]

Hi Deepfriedokra, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this guy's case, please?[edit]

User talk:Wjrz nj forecast --Orange Mike | Talk 04:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gah!  Done. Coffee! --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message from NLT user[edit]

DO WHATEVER U WANT TO DO, U WANT TO DELETE MY PAGE U CAN. AS I MA GRANDSON OF THE PERSON YOU MENTIONED IN THE PAGE AND 1976 IS NOT CORRECT DETAIL AS 1967 IS THE RIGHT. I DONT KNOW YOUR RUBBISH SOURCE. BEING HER GRANDSON I HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAN YOU. I AM NOT GOING TO WITHDRAW ANY THREAT OR EDIT. THERE ARE MANY OTHER PAGES AND SEARCH ENGINES. AS YOU HAVE PROVIDED WRONG INFORMATION ITS MY OWN SELF RESPECT TO MAKE YOUR DETAILS CORRECT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahasundari devi (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahasundari devi: Apparently, you do not understand that -- 1) reliable sources are needed for encyclopedia content, 2) you need to discuss article content on the article talk page, 3) you may not edit Wikipedia with an outstanding legal threat, 4) Wikipedia is not a webhost, and we do not place article content on our user pages. Please reconsider. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding copyright violation[edit]

Hi, Deepfriedokra I have come across an article Nataša Stanković which is found to be copyright violation as per WP:COPYVIO 76.1% copied from (https://www.celebritiesdetails.com/natasa-stankovic-height-weight-bra-size-age-biography-family-wiki/) having notice © 2016 - 2020 : Celebritiesdetails : All Rights Reserved. at the end of web-page. See copyvio report. The article is currently under AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nataša Stanković but I feel it satisfies WP:G12. Please have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 15:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amkgp: Thanks for your note. You should probably add this to the AfD discussion. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, I have already added. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 15:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why a soft block for Agrifacture?[edit]

Hi, Okra. Agrifacture created a great big promotional sandbox about a company called AgriFacture. I deleted it and went to block them as promotional username with promotional edits, i e a hard block, but found that you had already softblocked. Uh.. well, to put it baldly, why? Bishonen | tålk 20:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I thought so too.It was not tagged, so I went softer. Did I tag it? Don't recall. At any rate, now that it's gone, I'll change to SPAMU. Thanks. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 20:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, nobody tagged it, I just found it through UAA and deleted it straight away. I just had to make the sickening stuff about starting on David's back porch and so on go away, I couldn't look at it. (It comes straight from the company's website, naturally — pure, true marketing-speak.) Thanks for changing it. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
TBH, I did not get to the back porch. I just figured the reviewer had already accessed it and refrained from tagging, so I moved on. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning unblock[edit]

Hi there. As someone who has blocked this editor multiple times in the past, I’m a little concerned about this unblock. That editor has contributed to a fair amount of childish mischief and time wasting back in the day. I’m saddened to see I wasn’t not even asked about it... Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Apologies. I clearly got ahead of myself. Should've asked you first and then posted to WP:AN. Did not realize how duplicious the user had been and I missed any signs. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s no problem. Thanks for bringing it to AN for discussion, I do think that’s the right call. While I’m not in favor of the unblock, I can live with it if the community supports it. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Police Department[edit]

@Deepfriedokra, I didn't vandalize. I only added the names of officer that I found from article and added the links on the Dallas Police Department page about Tony Timpa case. If I did something the wrong way, please let me know. I'm new to wikipedia editing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RationalEndeavor (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
For your work on UTRS! --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, MAGA racist, you're going to be outed and dare I pray, after that, assaulted, you lying, discourse rigging MAGAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.222.112.232 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May not be available till Tuesday[edit]

--Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 01:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedakro[edit]

I blocked Deepfriedakro. If that is really your account, please let me know and I'll immediately lift the block (and, hopefully, autoblock). --Yamla (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: THANKS. I guess I should feel honored the LTA's are now imitating me. I have no alt accounts and will not have any. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) @Yamla: Can we get this one globally locked like the other one? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lowestoft[edit]

I saw that you blocked Jedijumpingjack. Do you have any concerns about Spudpants123, the other contributor? I imposed a temporary block a couple of weeks ago, but that was for incivility rather than socking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: Had not looked. Going to bed. been up all night. Actually, I just declined the UTRS. T'was Yamla did the block. But spud is likely sock or meat. Likely UPE. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 12:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

To anyone trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their views, and who is angry at me 'cause I am either a MAGA Trump loving white supremacist or a liberal SJW ANTIFA snowflake, as evidenced by opposition to you using Wikipedia as such a soapbox.. The fact that I've been accused of both is a pretty good indicator that I do a good job separating my personal politics from Wikipedia. I'm afraid your anger has more to do with your own political extremism than with my personal politics. I will thank you to keep your shrillness to yourself. Thanks, --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 04:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

INLAND RAIL[edit]

Inland Rail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One should always wear a mask in public during these trying times.

Hi Deepfriedokra,

I have been extremely surprised why you would use totally false excuses to remove the content of the Australian Inland Rail page information I had provided. Your excuses have absolutely nothing to do with your removal of my edit. In fact your false excuses are why all of my information should remain and be reinstated in the original Wikipedia page. Your comments are followed by the facts in bold as follows:- Hello, Concerned InlandRail. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Inland Rail, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). (***Not relevant and a false excuse, as I do not have an external relationship with the people, places or things.) Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. (***Not relevant and a false excuse, as there is no conflict of interest.) We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors; ((***Not relevant and a false excuse, as I have not done this); propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template) (***Not relevant and a false excuse, as I have not changed any person's affected articles) ; disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI) (***Not relevant and a false excuse, as I have no conflict of interest); avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam) (*** Not relevant and a false excuse, as I have not linked my organisation's website, but I note that you have linked Inland Rail's website indicating a conflict of interest and a lack of neutrality of the Wikipedia article); do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies (*** Not relevant and a false excuse, as I have complied with Wikipedia's content policies but with your changes YOU have ensured that all information and references are sourced from Inland Rail and its associates and is therefore directly in breach of Wikipedia's policy to be neutral and have no conflict of interest); In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.(***Not relevant and a false excuse, as all of my work is voluntary and I will receive no compensation for any of my work)

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. (***Not relevant and a false excuse, as there is no editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising or promoting anyone or anything). NOW, because all of your reasons as cut and pasted are not relevant and are false, could you please tell me WHY you have really edited the articles (who complained and what was the basis of their complaint)? You need to reinstate my changes (which were expert information) as your Wikipedia page is now well out of date and based wholly on information from Inland Rail and associates which is not neutral or without conflict of interest. If you cannot do this, please have your supervisor at Wikipedia contact me so this can be discussed. Thank you. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Concerned InlandRail (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them a note - this appears to be a classic activism-only account. To Concerned InlandRail, your edits are obviously intended to promote a particular point of view, and are clearly problematic. A neutral presentation would have referenced published material on opposition to the project, without inserting commentary or criticism in the encyclopedia's voice, and a neutral editor would not have leaped to the conclusions and argument you have presented above. And we don't have supervisors. Acroterion (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: Yeah all poorly sourced negative content from someone who gives the appearance of being on a mission. Sad. @Concerned InlandRail: Feel free to raise the matter at the noticeboard of your choice. I will be away for some time and unable to respond, as I have outside obligations. but don't let that stop you.. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS If one looks closely, one sees I removed the promocruft sourced to the company and other connected sources. @Concerned InlandRail: as this indirectly concerns living persons, WP:BLP probably apples. You should probably gain consensus before adding back material that I removed and challenged as poorly sourced negative material. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein)
@Concerned InlandRail: Did you even look at the current version? Please feel free to remove any content remaining that cites the company or other connected sources. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, this sort of post shows I'm doing a good job. Last week I was a Trump loving white supremacist. I've also been a Libtard-- and worst. Generally, the degree of vehemence is more a measure of the poster than of me. Cheers, stay safe, and for God's sake wear a mask in public. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 16:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't remember what prompted me to look at that. I renamed User:Mgreenwo3030 --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

... for copying my comment from a closed UTRS appeal to the open one, so that the editor could see it. I have little experience of UTRS, and didn't fully understand how to do things, but I think I've got the hang of it now. (Though of course if I still haven't then please correct me.) JBW (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW:. Hope it was OK. I'm so groping with this. If memory serves, it was germane to the message I left. You are one of the best spoken of our colleagues. For all the good it does(?), I want people to understand how to fix problems. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 23:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My internal censor is down[edit]

and I've been dealing with some strange things, so I'll just leave this here. Dumb asses gonna dumb ass. There. I fell better already. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're always welcome to swear at me. Just replace the editor(s) at issue's name(s) with "Levivich" and then let it all out. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More on UTRS[edit]

I've just declined appeal 30957. You had suggested removing UTRS access till October, and I agree. How do we do that? Is it a question of emailing the tool admins? If you know how to do it, you may like to go ahead. JBW (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW:Regrettably, banning is not available. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 20:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to question about relationship with Ioannis Antypas[edit]

Hi Deepfriedokre,

Hope you are well!

I am in no way personally or professionally linked to Ioannis. I am researching the Antypas families greek heritage and Ioannis is the great-grandson of a well known historical greek business figure. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinos_Antypas

I have not finished writing the article and I apologise for the review requests, I'm not sure how to edit and save progress to submit for review later once complete. I have only have found the publish button to work to save progress so far. I am new to Wikipedia!

Apologies!

Best,

Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by NashPR (talk • contribs)

UTRS 30915[edit]

Hi. At the risk of sounding rather ignorant, I've never spent any time on these pages before but I can't see that anyone is responsible for closing this appeal. Given that the appellant is now strongly insinuating that admins have been attempting to hack his e-mail, it really is time to settle this one way or another. Deb (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: How delightful. I'll have a lok. Unfortunately, the "ban" feature is not working. Which is what it sounds like needing. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 07:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ergh, has he been emailing you? Deb (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. The posts on the latest appeal are enough. I have recused. Which set him off again. Pasted all my comments to his talk for transparency. Asked HickoryOughtShirt?4 ‎ to give it a fresh look. Banning is broken. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: We've all made greater efforts than with most to inform, coach, allay-- and he just keeps escalating. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I declined 30915. 31268 is up --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's got to be trolling. No one could be that shameless... could they? 18:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it's COVID-19. My judgment was affected for months. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never accepted/rejected an appeal using this interface so I thought when I hit decline it would allow me to type a comment. I have a lenghtly comment coming but I agree with all of your assessments. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. Can't get it back. Drat. You can post to their talk page. They like transparency. Thanks for looking. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Sorry, I'll do that. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The response choices are at the bottom. Don't worry. They'll post a follow-up. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Yeah, tell ' em you're posting to their talk for transparency. Sorry to drag you in, but I wanted someone good.19:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ya, no worries. Not like I had much planned today anways , we're still pretty sheltered. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether this vexatious litigant ought to lose his ability to e-mail. He says on his talk page that he has e-mailed other admins (I don't know who) and his aim can only be to pester admins to try to get them to change the decision on his appeals. Or would it be better to wait until someone actually complains? Deb (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: Is he still emailing you? For goodness sake, don't reply via your email. It will make your email visible and give him a handle on your real life identity. Has not as yet emailed me. If he is harassing you, someone fresh should decide about removing his email account.. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 08:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that stupid. It's just that, in one of his appeals, he said he was e-mailing "other administrators". He has already made a veiled accusation that "someone" from Wikipedia is trying to hack his e-mails, and others may not know the background and may in all innocence respond. Deb (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I reply on their talk pages. He wants transparency? He needs to stop emailing people. If threatening in any way, you could forward to arbcom. He needs to appeal via UTRS. If still on his WP:ADMINACCT kick, he needs to email arbcom. You could tell him all of this on his talk. If he thinks we're trying to hack his email, he shoud contact ArbCom. In fact @Bradv:, a moment of your time? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 08:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me too. I just don't want anyone else to fall into the trap. Is there any way we can track his e-mail activity within the project? If he's stopped doing it, it's not a problem. Deb (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: I suppose WMF could, but that's power I do not want. I can't imagine any admin not going to the user's talk page first if they received such an email. That (hacking) would be the sort of ADMINACCT issue that would have to go to the Arb's. TBH, his behavior is bizarre enough that doubt anyone would see him as credible. And what would be the point? What possible use would it be? Sad really. He's gone off the deep end like this with prior edit warring/NPA blocks, but now he's gone to an extreme. I don't know. Never had anyone like this before. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 10:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fingers crossed. I won't try to escalate it unless he comes back with another appeal. Deb (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I've seen this, including the 4 appeals on UTRS. Ideally we would restore talk page access so they can file a proper unblock request onwiki, but as long as they continue to focus on their perceived issues with other people's behaviour rather than their own, there's no point. – bradv🍁 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teachable moments[edit]

I returned to Talk:Derek Chauvin today, after an absence of a week or so, and found edits I made had been hidden.

The log shows you and David Eppstein hid three separate revisions, between you. Your edit summaries said "Serious BLP violations", and David Eppstein's edit summary also included this phrase.

Can you confirm you hid edits I made?

Did you hide edits I made because you thought they lapsed from BLPNAME?

I have questions about applying BLPNAME to a certain individual, who I won't name here. I think you know who I mean.

BLPNAME protects individuals from having their name published if their name has not been widely disseminated. I think a simple google search on that individual's name shows the name is highly disseminated.

The individual in question has started the steps to officially change their name. I suggest that it is their new name that should be protected. I fully support applying BLPNAME to their new name, which does meet the "not widely disseminated" criteria.

I have an essay User:Geo Swan/opinions/Teachable moments. The gist is I think good faith contributors should be able to ask good faith questions, and the project works best if good faith questions get good faith answers, even if the answer seems "obvious" to the person to whom the question is posed.

So, was the "serious BLP violation" that justified the revision hiding BLPNAME? If so how widely disseminated can a name be, and still measure up to the "not widely disseminated" criteria?

Really, shouldn't it be this individual's new name that merits BLPNAME protection?

If the justification for hiding those edits was not BLPNAME could you please be more specific over your concern? Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Yes. There was some discussion on the talk page about that, though I did not follow it afterward. Obviously we disagree over the merits of putting that information on Wikipedia. I tend to err on the side of removing BLP content that looks iffy, especially after my encounters with the representatives of certain subjects. (hi y'all, if you still watch my talk page.) I suppose the best course would, if you wish the revdel reversed would be to post at WP:AN or WP:BLPN. You can post your reasons there. As I recall, at least one user was blocked over trying to include that information, so revdel seemed reasonable. Certainly, if the consensus in that discussion was to include the challenged content than it can be unrevdel'd. This is like the middle of the night for me right now due to the demands of my job, so I may be asleep or at work for long peridos for he next 24 hours and might not respond quickly. Oh, here's a thought--@EEng: have you any thoughts? Maybe I should repost my section about that BLP stuff. God willing I'll go back to sleep now. Thanks, --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS I kno we set great stock in not walking on each other's toes. Any admin should feel free to restore the revdel edits if they see fit. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "not widely disseminated" proviso reads in full has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, and the latter controls even if the concealment has failed to some extent. And BTW there's some indication the new name may be one of the prior names. Including anything about this anywhere on the project has no value to our readers whatsoever; if ever there was a case of some people (including children) who are utterly innocent yet in danger of being swallowed up by something completely beyond their control, this is it, and we should not be contributing to that possibility in any way.
The less said about this the better. There's now an edit filter to prevent this material being restored, and obviously the revdels should remain. Do not raise this at AN or ANI, which are very highly trafficked and would draw more attention to no purpose -- or anywhere else for that matter. Multiple admins have been involved in this, and there's universal agreement. Drop it, GS. EEng 16:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan and David Eppstein: This little bit of unpleasntness only heightens my concern for Wikipedia not revealing information about people that can get them doxxed. I think your efforts would be better directed toward seeking consensus to get that information included. As I have said more than once, I will err on the side of caution if I am to err. And without getting into WP:BEANS territory for my many off Wiki admirers, I am willing to die on this hill . (Hi, y'all. See my user page please. User:Deepfriedokra#MAGA ANTIFA snowflake white supremacist) --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 20:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra/archive_2020-01&oldid=998754818"