User talk:Longhair

This user may have left Wikipedia. Longhair has not edited Wikipedia since December 6, 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Apologies for leaving a message here as well as on my talk page, but I'm not sure whether you also watch talk pages of IP addresses after leaving a message there. I noticed that you reverted my edit to 2020 in arthropod paleontology, but in a message you only mentioned that it appearing unconstructive, and it's not clear to me what it was exactly that caused the revert. Regards--188.147.32.84 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@188.147.32.84: You edited Burmesia to Burmesiana, which is not supported by the reference provided. -- Longhair\^talk 21:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It very much is - please check page 193 of the reference provided. Regards--188.147.32.84 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I wasn't about to begin reading over 250 pages but my document search failed to locate reference to your changes. I do see now where your edit is supported by the reference. Apologies, and please continue editing thanks. All the best. -- Longhair\^talk 22:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I noticed that one of the things that can get a Wikipedia page taken down is if it's not "notable". My anarchy server will never be as big as something like 2b2t or hypixel, but would it be okay to use Wikipedia as a base, so that It can grow as my server gets more popular? I am completely new to making content on Wikipedia, i didn't even know there was an article wizard that's how little I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DraconicPiggy (talk • contribs)

@DraconicPiggy: Wikipedia is not free web hosting. May I suggest you find yourself a web hosting service. -- Longhair\^talk 22:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Longhair,

Looks like this page might need to be protected. I saw on the Deletion log that you recently deleted it but it's been recreated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks. I'll keep an eye on it. The editor is keen to see it published, abusing multiple accounts to (attempt to) do so. -- Longhair\^talk 00:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section to Brusatte's bio about his work on Jurassic World: Dominion, saying that he had been involved in the introduction of feathered dinosaurs to the film franchise. The source was a tweet he made. I understand that Twitter is Twitter, but it is coming directly from Brusatte, so it's essentially a primary source. I figured that statements made by public figures about themselves, regardless of platform, were acceptable citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Monkeys from Outer Space (talk • contribs)

I get what you're saying, and yes, the guidelines on reliable sources does mention that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". The tweet wasn't about himself however, but a film. On a second glance at your edit, you do back up the claim by referring to an "extended preview" (which I haven't seen), so I'll accept your reasoning and welcome you to revert my change to the article. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 02:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CONSURE MEDICALS PVT LTD for two accounts which you already blocked. The user has freely admitted creating multiple accounts using at least seven different email addresses, and is doing so for the purposes of undisclosed paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just enjoy living dangerously eh? Thanks. :D -- Longhair\^talk 16:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how tf did you find that, seriously 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I even put spaces and switched words around 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to be clear i'll easily come back on another account, but i don't know how you are "busy in real life" and find stuff like that 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've seen it all before and one tends to think like they do in order to prevent what they do. Block evasion isn't exactly an original concept you know :D -- Longhair\^talk 01:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is my first article I am publishing and want to figure why the last was deleted. Don't want to be breaking rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corai Quinn (talk • contribs)

@Corai Quinn: The links left on your talk page describe the issues in detail. In brief, you were writing about yourself, which is a conflict of interest, and secondly, the topic may not be notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. -- Longhair\^talk 02:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have no idea why this happened, the notification was sent out using Twinkle and it somehow replaced your block message. My apologies, and thank you for the block. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: In all my years here, I've never seen such a thing happen either. My guess is we just happened upon the same talk page at the exact same time, edit conflict style, yet the usual edit conflict alert didn't occur and your edit wiped mine out. It seems a one off occurrence. If it happens again it's a bug somewhere. It was easily fixed however and the end user possibly won't notice a thing. :D -- Longhair\^talk 06:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how tf did you find that, seriously 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I even put spaces and switched words around 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to be clear i'll easily come back on another account, but i don't know how you are "busy in real life" and find stuff like that 92.4.79.94 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've seen it all before and one tends to think like they do in order to prevent what they do. Block evasion isn't exactly an original concept you know :D -- Longhair\^talk 01:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So do you watch IronManCap's page or what 92.4.79.94 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you delete this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Hooman+Saffari but everything is was right you can check it by yourself on imdb https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12538758/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoomansf (talk • contribs) 16:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you revdel the edits and edit summaries of this IP? It's WP:LTA/GRP or copycat, and the edits contain links to attack sites run by GRP containing highly abusive libel aimed at several admins and other users. Such links have usually been revdelled, such as on my talk page. Thank you. JavaHurricane 04:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: Sure. I'll go back once they slow down and give them a wipe. -- Longhair\^talk 04:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JavaHurricane 04:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's back at 103.152.102.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), please block. JavaHurricane 04:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: Yeah I know. He's moving about as I block. They'll get bored eventually... they always do. -- Longhair\^talk 04:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: I think I managed to revdel them all. If I've missed any or they return feel free to let me know. Thanks. -- Longhair\^talk 04:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You missed 201.227.60.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). JavaHurricane 05:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: Done. And blocked. -- Longhair\^talk 05:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's doing his usual talk page abuse at 197.50.81.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), again linking to a blacklisted libel site. JavaHurricane 06:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

Hi Longhair,

I wrote an article earlier this year that was review and edits were suggested. Today I made those edits but now the article was deleted due to principle (don't write articles about yourself). I am under the impression that it's quite normal that artists contribute to wikipedia themselves. Some of my works are difficult to find and people often refer to the missing wiki page were such information may be found. As a professor I find students are similarly asking about my presence on wikipedia. I could hire or ask someone else to write the article but that appears to be a bit silly to me. Have you reviewed my latest edits? If so, what in your mind is still missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikAlbert (talk • contribs)

@HenrikAlbert: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is interested in what other parties have to say about a topic, not what a topic wishes to say about itself. Wikipedia is not for self promotion. Please review WP:PROMO, WP:PAID, and WP:COI. Also, your article was never an actual article, but a draft article. An actual article on Henrik Frisk has never actually existed. Your draft article was rejected for publication due to not meeting the notability standards required for musical artists. If you're simply here to promote yourself, you'll run the risk of an indefinite block if you continue to do so. -- Longhair\^talk 12:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Sorry for confusing Article with draft article, that was a mistake. Fair point about Wikipedia being interested in what other people have to say. I have of course read the notability standards required for musical artists (which should be revised as they are not very clear, and communicates a dated view upon what a musical artist is in 2021) and I believe I meet the requirements for the context that I am active within, else I would not have contributed in the first place. This should have been clear from my complete revision today. Not sure why you think I am simply here to promote myself, but the warning of indefinite block is uncalled for. However, your first review was not inline with the sudden deletion, that was the reason I wrote you. If this was not a mistake I will drop this now. — HenrikAlbert (talk • contribs)

@HenrikAlbert: I did not review your draft article, but whoever did followed the long established guidelines here and deemed it not worthy of inclusion. Your own talk page details all of that information. If your sole intention is to write about yourself and / or your music, that is self promotion. As Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, you're more than welcome to suggest a revision or update to the notability guidelines. And blocking is the usual outcome for those who use Wikipedia for promotion, or else the place would be full of 13yo rappers recording music in their bathrooms, YouTube cat videos galore and all kinds of fluff nobody really cares for. -- Longhair\^talk 22:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Fine. I must then have misunderstood the first review. To me it explicitely asked additional information to support the article. That's what I did but then it got deleted, hence my writing to you. I hope that bit is clear now. I would be happy to contribute to the guidelines, although I would expect those to be part of a more strategic aspect of Wikipedia. I understand the bit about self promotion and will still argue that is not what I am doing, but I will drop it now. The problem is that a very large number of articles should then also be disqualified, which I think would be a shame. There are existing articles referencing me (my name) that now don't lead anywhere, and after 30+ years working internationally I am not a 13 year old rapper. And to just make a general claim (though I may be wrong about this): To make the point that there is a general interest in an article about x, unless the reviewer has specific information about the field that x is active in, x has to promote themself, hence being disqualified as self promotion. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to discuss this. I will certainly take a look at the notability guidelines. — HenrikAlbert (talk • contribs)

@HenrikAlbert: I've restored your draft article. It is available at Draft:Henrik Frisk. I've done this as upon a second glance, you had a pending draft submission waiting review. I mistook the template at the top of your draft rejecting the previous review as being current. I hope this helps. Also remember, if your draft article is accepted, it will be a conflict of interest if you continue to edit that article directly should it be accepted. On the topic of other articles existing, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Longhair\^talk 17:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going through CAT:UNBLOCK again. I agree with this block, it seems reasonable.

The response from the editor seems promising. They have chosen an appropriate name, they say their previous name was from a defunct software company.

They claim they are just a fan of the radio station and that they based the format on the article Zenith Classic Rock which seems consistent.

I have pointed out to them the COI, SPAM, and NOTABILITY policies. I have pointed out that their radio station probably does not meet our notability requirements. I have asked them where they do intend to edit if unblocked.

Assuming their responses to these concerns are reasonable and I keep an eye on them after, how do you feel about me unblocking? Also please let me know if you have any other concerns to add. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: I did find this, which from my quick glance looks to be a web-based RSS reader where KixSoftware promotes said radio station. That led me to believe the two are linked. -- Longhair\^talk 01:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I will ask them to explain that. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Longhair, this ip is a sockpuppet of Walter Ezequiel Matthysse Jr., globally banned by autobiographical spam. Regards Valdemar2018 (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valdemar2018: Thank you. I've blocked that ip for a month as I cannot block it indefinitely. Good catch. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 10:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longhair,

Thank you for your messages. I appreciate the information and direction.

I am new to Wikipedia (editing) and certainly wish to comply.

I am new to Northpoint, and I noticed errors or things which could have been stated better or differently. Thus, I entered corrections. If I have erred, my apologies, and I will do what is needed to correct.

Any guidance you have would be appreciated, and if I have missed something, I certainly wish to correct that as well. Thank you, TH — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrThomasHarrison (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DrThomasHarrison: Hello and thank you for your reply. As an employee of Northpoint Bible College you have a clear conflict of interest with the topic and your contributions to the article are considered to be paid editing. To avoid any issues, it is advised not to edit the article on Northpoint Bible College directly, but to request edits via the article talk page. You will also be required to add a conflict of interest declaration to your userpage so other editors are aware of your paid status. This can be done by using the {{UserboxCOI}} template. Please let me know if you require any further assistance thanks. -- Longhair\^talk 22:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good to hearing from you. I messaging you regarding the reverted page which i contributed. I have read through wikipedia guide and I always ensure to follow their guide before supply any information. Hence, I updated a link and it was reverted by you because you saw it as spam but well, any resource I supply, it was related to the topic of discussion, as such to encourage us for continuous updating of wikipedia, our effort should always be considered as our mission is to keep wikipedia legacy going.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frediemie (talk • contribs)

@Frediemie: You linked to a commercial LLC company website providing air quality products while naming the link as being the International Conference on Urban Air Quality. That's not only misleading, that's spam. Just for the record, I was the first to issue you a warning not to add links of that nature, and somebody else has warned you since. -- Longhair\^talk 08:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for clearing the air. Apology but I want us to understand, most of the time, someone edit wikipedia changing the title to similar one but still, wikipedia editors see it as you are trying to manipulate links to a particular resource. Also, I want to make us understand that before, I replace dead link, I will first search for the old url link on search engine, if it still available, I replace it exactly but if not I look for a similar work inline with the topic. However, I will try as much as possible to adhered to the guide, also, editor should always be slow to revert to keep motivation willful mind who want to contributes.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frediemie (talk • contribs)

@Frediemie:I can see what you're trying to do, and I assume you're here to help the project remove dead links. I think you just need to be more mindful about what links you're adding. Usually, business related links that advertise products or services are not welcome unless they relate directly to the article topic. That another editor has also taken issue with your changes tells me that more care will need to be taken. I think it's a good idea to, as you say, see if the existing link is still valid and still online elsewhere before changing the link entirely. -- Longhair\^talk 09:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Longhair, the links to external pages you deleted were in fact not in accordance with Wikipedia standards, once they were the body of the article. But they are important information for ISAT users since there few known open source implementations. Implement ISAT is a non-trivial task, allow the readers to know about the existing codes is important. In this sense, I will again include the links in the article, but this time in the external references section.

Thank you for monitoring the Leigh Harris wikipedia page. Her husband Rick Ledbetter is using it for self promotion. He delved into recordings she forbid him to touch when she was alive, and "remastered" them, at times with disastrous results. He is marketing them on her Bandcamp page and has arranged that he reap with money generated from sales. He is fully aware this was against her wishes and was only able to do this after her death.

The CD "Home" was released in 2007 not 2018. What was released in 2018 was his remaster of the original. That date needs correcting.

Deevaleigh (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)deevaleigh[reply]

@Deevaleigh: With a very clear conflict of interest, he shouldn't even be editing the article directly. I've left messages at his talk page but last check they've been ignored. -- Longhair\^talk 09:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: New revisions by user 2600:6C40:5800:1298:19B8:E19E:894F:6A0A2600:6C40:5800:1298:19B8:E19E:894F:6A0A made 29 August from a mobile device are reverting to content from edits made 14 July 2021 at 2:13. Back Door Blues Revue was an after hours “Open Mic” style jam with musicians dropping in after their gigs. Leigh Harris, among other musicians, sat in a few times. It was not a band she “fronted” New edits violate COI, lack neutral POV, has ongoing paid editor issues, lacks objectivity/encyclopedic tone, and is promotional. Based on former revisions, new editor possibly a sock puppet. As Leigh Harris is deceased and no longer contributing musical works, her legacy is complete. Would it be feasible to remove the aforementioned violations and then lock the page?Deevaleigh (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Deevaleigh[reply]

@Deevaleigh: Feel free to revert the edit. I did see it arrive but not being familar with the Harris story I sat back and waited for a comment such as yours to arrive. Should you revert, and they revert back, see if they engage at the talk page or battle it out like last time. -- Longhair\^talk 20:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was extremely biased and inaccurate, the wording was fixed to be more neutral and accurate, less biased and inflamatory. If you are opposed to accuracy, professionalism and neutrality, you are demeaning your own credibility. There's no 'source' needed to reword "attack" to "protest", when there was no attack, and it was merely a protest, contrary to the hyperbole and hysteria being pushed by one side, the same side that calls domestic terrorist attacks, 'peaceful protests' by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.5.135 (talk • contribs)

Even the article you're linking to refers to the "protest" as an attack in the article title. Use the relevant article talk pages to discuss your controversial changes rather than edit warring to your preferred version of events thanks. -- Longhair\^talk 23:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please revert back to this version. This should not be added until the RfC request about such addition is completed. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King: See the comment I just left on the article talk page. I'll read over the RfC shortly and see what the current consensus is before making any article changes. As you are an extended confirmed user, you may already be able to make such a change. -- Longhair\^talk 21:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for telling me, that you have removed that external link. but this link might be helpful for those people who are seeking for Jobs in India. We at DailySarkariResults.com provides job information (several types of govt jobs) at one place. we collect all the job information from interenet resources, news, employment News and many other places and put the correct information on this website. So in my opinion, please add this url DailySarkariResults.Com in a reference lists.

Hope, you understand.

thanks & Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilvermait01 (talk • contribs)

@Anilvermait01: Sorry. It's spam. Wikipedia isn't the place people arrive at looking for jobs. -- Longhair\^talk 04:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reason to revert my edit at River Valley High School. I am thinking of including it in List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–present) since it is now confirmed to be a student killing his classmate NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NelsonLee20042020: Just a heads up. The investigation is in the very early stages. Yes, it's quite possibly big news at present, but tread very carefully how things are worded to avoid subjudice which could affect any possible future legal proceedings. Sometimes it's good advice to simply wait until some time passes before making any statements about such events and that information could change rapidly this early in such circumstances. The media is often quick to break news but that doesn't always mean they have all the facts. -- Longhair\^talk 07:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is reporting the incident is sparking national debate about mental health of students. Already two senior ministers have commented about a local high school, which isn't very famous, not like Raffles. So already, there is indication that this is a major event. Also some other school articles have mention of a killing of one student. Two examples are given on the article talk page. Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok that does make sense NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war I am not intending.

I have used the talk page. I have added international sources from several countries. I have made modifications. Yet the other guy just blanks out the entire section. His/her reasoning is very odd. He/she makes up things that is not wikipedia policy, like saying that only when there is negligence on the part of the school can it be in an article. Please help. Are you an admin? Charliestalnaker (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Charliestalnaker: Two editors are now reverting your additions. I make no comment on the content other than a separate article on the attack did exist before the other editor you're warring with redirected it, and that the talk page discussion clearly hasn't found an acceptable outcome as yet. -- Longhair\^talk 05:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me the idea that NOTNEWS applies to what may potentially be the first case of domestic terrorism (or at least the first case of somebody getting killed) in a Singaporean school is rather goofy. Separate arguments raised elsewhere, like the event is not notable in itself because only one victim died, instead of many ala a typical US school shooting, sound absurd and callous. I wonder if you have any thoughts regarding this. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to notice the other messages above mine. Well, my gut tells me that Robert et al's reasoning for page blanking and merger are spurious, to say the least. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingoflettuce: You'll note on the school article itself I was the first editor to revert under the same application of WP:NOTNEWS, but that was very early on after the incident. I'm undecided as of now... somewhat in the corner of it's a bit early to know of the significance of such an event, leaning towards if this event introduces any changes or has any lasting effects on schooling in Singapore then it may very well warrant an article. I'll leave the editing and reverting alone for now... there's no rush to write up such things, and time is usually a good thing to allow pass to look back on just what happened and what effect it had on those who are left to deal with it. The message above arises from edit warring on the topic, and I wasn't offering any thoughts on the content up there. You asked, and to summarise, it's too early to see what lasting effects such a crime will have, which will bring the article from this happened to this happened, and had this lasting effect, ie, from being just news, to an encyclopaedic event. - Longhair\^talk 07:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoflettuce, your edit comment to reverting my page blanking indicates as it a good faith edit, but yet call the reasoning as spurious. Make up your mind. At the time of my page blanking, the style of writing on there read to me is more of a news report rather than an encyclopaedic entry. Like Longhair, I do not see the rush to write about the subject until when it is clear that there is a change in Singapore or lasting effects in schooling here. I didn't see the rush to create an article about David Roach robbing the bank (which would probably have failed AfD if created on that day of crime committed), so why the rush to create an article for this? Nonetheless, I ain't stopping you from having the article up there for now. Time will tell if the article will survive the notability guidelines for events. – robertsky (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Robert, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. I do believe you were acting in good faith but that your reasoning is spurious, i.e. Seemingly but not actually valid. And the article now still reads more or less the same as it did at the start so I don't quite agree with that either. In any case, that would be a cleanup issue, not one that warrants page blanking. I will not comment on the false equivalence between this event and others. We can agree to disagree Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the very earnest and well-meaning userpage again. That user did not state that 3 people were sharing the account, the user disclosed that "any new pages created" would represent joint work by a team of three people. The appropriate response here would be to advise them that this is not acceptable under Wikipedia rules, rather than to issue an indefinite block as if the person were some LTA. See also WP:BITE.

I have no COI and no relation to the APS other than that several articles on my watchlist are for scholars who are members there, so that I noticed a sudden pattern on my watchlist due to multiple reversions of the useful information about their memberships. E.g. [1] [2] etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: Can we keep this conversation on one talk page please? I don't mind where, just keep it intact. Helps make it easier to follow. I am not sure if you've seen my response at User talk:Justlettersandnumbers. I will unblock because you clearly know more about this arrangement than us two admins do, so I'll accept your explanation and unblock the account. Now I apologise if this has been stated previously, but can you point me towards the information on these conflict of interest exceptions that apply to Wikipedians in residence or aligned organisations thanks? Clearly this was something both of us admins knew little about but now it's been made clear, we both require all the information about such an agreement. You're welcome to reply about that info or their unblocking here. -- Longhair\^talk 11:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: They've been unblocked. I'll followup in the morning (it's late here) about their editing and if they are indeed sharing their account. This is something that, if it hasn't been previously noted before, should be posted at the relevant admin noticeboards because I can assure you this is not something that struck either of us as the accepted norm. -- Longhair\^talk 11:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking! I don't know anything about COIs and Wikipedians in Residence. I don't really know much about any aspect of this ruckus except that APS is a notable organization such that being elected a member is a big deal. It's a bit like the National Academies except that APS includes historians, poets, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, etc. so their meetings are probably more fun.

It is very understandable that people have an instinctively hostile response to paid editing, even when disclosed. But I was touched by the innocent well-meaning of the MAHosie userpage. And I am touched by the kindness and promptness of your response. (Maybe my grandma was right and I am just plain "touched" in general. (That's a New England joke.)) Have a good sleep. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: I think what we can take away from this is that neither of us admins knew much about the APS, or that being a member is a big deal. Everybody with a cart to push wants to promote their organisation or membership of same at Wikipedia and it is easy to see them all as one spammy lot in the end, paid declaration made or not. You're clearly more knowledgeable on the topic than either of us are so I for one am accepting of your explanations here. Perhaps we can assist to make their userpage, as well intentioned as it is, very clear on what they are doing, why it is somewhat accepted, to the point, loud and clear, or someone, somewhere will possibly eventually block them again. Goodnight. And thanks for teaching me something I find somewhat interesting here. -- Longhair\^talk 12:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange:Hi all-- I certainly don't want to evade accountability, but, on my end, none of this was intentional. This is a new project I was made to take on for work. I had some preliminary training in the form of a Development Training module, and, clearly, some of the rules laid out in said module were lost in translation for me. For what it's worth, no one but myself has access to my account. Jeff, Julie, etc. were colleagues who worked on this project before I was made to take it over and I wanted to acknowledge their contributions. I'm happy to take that part out of my userpage if need be. That said, any other tips you have that would help strengthen my userpage and/or clarify my paid status would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your understanding and patience.-- MAHosieAPS\^talk 09:37, 20 July 2021 (EST)

@MAHosieAPS: As Longhair pointed out above, you are going to get blocked repeatedly by admins who stumble upon your pattern of edits. (And your userpage while charming is TMI and confusing.) I suggest you find an experienced "mentor" Wikipedian administrator and get pre-approval, which you mention on your talk page, for certain kinds of repetitive edits. For example, get explicit approval to add to multiple articles the statement "(Person name) was elected to the American Philosophical Society in (appropriate year).(citation)" Part of your problem is that most non-academics have never heard of the APS and don't understand that being elected a member is useful information to the person's bio. Please don't take that as advice to go add promotional material to the APS article! That would indeed get you blocked. I am not an admin or even very experienced myself, so my endorsement of your edits wouldn't help you. You need help from an experienced admin, preferably somebody in a time zone that is awake during the same hours you are awake. You can also get very useful help and advice in real time using IRC. I do that often. Almost as instantaneous is posting a request for help/advice at User_talk:Oshwah and god bless Oshwah that this is so. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: You may not find an admin willing to put their name to such pre-approval, lest they be seen to be muddying their waters with paid contributors etc, especially if that's stated someplace on a userpage. Admins are held to a high standard (and I am in no way suggesting that fraternising with the APS is lowering standards), and are often dealing with issues that lead some disgruntled editors who've clashed with an admin to point the finger suggesting they've "gone rogue" or "abusing their tools" etc. MAHosieAPS is doing all they can to work within the rules (and I thank them for clarifying the shared account issue btw), but they did attract the attention of two admins who saw "spam" and undid 8 months of work in a night. I've sat here wondering how else this could be done... categorising APS members wouldn't work as effectively but perhaps an article such as List of members of the American Philosophical Society might? Such a list could be referenced with the very same references provided in each article edited so far. All of the information is in one place. If it's jumped upon as promotional, it's only one article to undelete or similar, rather than 1,000 or so that as you know were largely reverted last night. Perhaps then with the existence of such a list, categorising members might then be worthwhile. The list talk page could then clearly explain the editing circumstances. I'm just brainstorming here... feel free to throw my ideas aside on work them into something that feels and looks right. -- Longhair\^talk 22:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MAHosieAPS: Where can I find information on WikiProject:GLAM which you mention on your userpage? My quick search fails to locate it. -- Longhair\^talk 23:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found it at Wikipedia:GLAM. -- Longhair\^talk 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Hello again! Many, many thanks for your suggestions. In terms of a List of members of the American Philosophical Society article, there is a "Category:Members of the American Philosophical Society" [3]. Would strictly adding to this page violate COI restrictions? I wish I had other solutions to suggest, but I don't really know what's possible in terms of changing the way I edit to avoid violating guidelines. I don't want to force you to walk me through this process, but I'm not quite sure who else to turn to. I apologize if I'm making this too laborious and time-consuming for you.-- MAHosieAPS\^talk 13:31, 21 July 2021 (EST)

The citations proposed by MAHosieAPS are useful of themselves as capsule biographies for notable people, e.g. this one for Rita Levi-Montalcini or this one for Tore Frängsmyr. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contribution and revision on the page with reference to this user, I10love9kangaroos84.

It should be noted that users 203.220.186.201 and Nospamalot, who made edits to the page, are very likely the same person. This person is a known political opponent of the subject, who commenced editing the page on 14 July, making many more edits from 19-20 July. This person has no intention to constructively contribute to the page, only to frame the subject in a negative light in an attempt to discredit the subject, vandalise the page and advantage their own political agenda.

With respect to the edit under discussion, as re-added to the page, this was originally added by Nospamalot (2 contributions overall) with a comment: "Was alerted to the whitewashing of this page...[the subject was] a colourful member of the government from 2016-19 who featured prominently in the media across a number of high-profile events, which seem to have been removed from this page. Added with full citations from credible news sources"

There has been no "whitewashing" of the page with respect to the new content added by Nospamalot. The "high-profile" events referred to as having been "removed from this page" were never removed from the page as they were never on there to begin with (as evidenced throughout the pages edit history). These are totally new additions to the page added only by Nospamalot, the content of which has never been on the page before now.

In terms of the content, while Nospamalot has provided "sources", the content either is defamatory, inaccurate, does not present a full picture or attempts to frame the subject in a negative light via 'guilt by association' for matters outside of the control of the subject.

With respect to the first removal via this userpage, I10love9kangaroos84, the comment added was: "These changes are an attempt at harassment of the subject and page vandalism by subject opponents based on incomplete or incorrect information. For example, it must be noted that the original reporting regarding Gretals was incorrect in that Gretals had not received a Commonwealth grant at the time...[the subject] invested. While...[the subject] had mentioned this company being the successful recipient of a grant in Parliament, Gretals had later rejected that grant prior to...[the subject's] SMSF investing in it."

When Nospamalot then readded the content, the comments again removing this content noted the defamatory and incorrect nature of the content by utilising the tags " Hello, I'm I10love9kangaroos84. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hello, I'm I10love9kangaroos84. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hello, I'm I10love9kangaroos84. Your recent edit(s) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hello, I'm I10love9kangaroos84. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been disallowed by an edit filter as they did not appear constructive. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you believe the edit filter disallowance was a false positive, please report it here. Feel free to ask for assistance at the Teahouse whenever you like. Thank you.

"

The first allegation at hand in Nospamalot's content was that the subject's self-managed superannuation fund had invested in a company with less than 25 shareholders that had allegedly received a government grant, creating an alleged constitutional issue. This was later totally discredited given that Gretals had actually rejected the grant before the time the subject's superannuation fund invested in them, meaning the original media reports relying on a speech to Parliament were also incorrect. This was confirmed via both statements in online media articles from Gretals ("Gretals “did not proceed” with projects that were to be financed through the global connections fund. “We never received funding,” he said), as well as legal advice from David Bennett QC putting the subject totally in the clear and discrediting his political opposition's claims. It should be noted that the subject considered commencing defamation proceedings against the original media sources who printed the later discredited information, but determined not to due to the cost and effort involved.

The inclusion of this content on the page by Nospamalot with an early media source, containing later discredited information, is only therefore intended to put the subject under a cloud to try to discredit him.

It should also be noted that this statement made by Nospamalot is also unsourced and totally incorrect: "The parliamentary vote to refer...[the subject] to the High Court was defeated and...[the subject] continued to serve as Member...and contested the 2019 federal election." There was no vote to refer the subject to the High Court after the above information discrediting the original claims came out, so this statement by Nospamalot is also incorrect.

The second allegation at hand in Nospamalot's content relates to environmental grants. While the Facebook posts and media release themselves were clumsily worded (as explained by the subject at the time), in the actual video announcements within those same original Facebook posts the then Minister for the Environment and the subject made it quite clear to local organisations (being organisations who had submitted EOIs for the program) that those would be environmental projects that would be nominated under the environmental grants program only once it formally opened, with funding to flow if both the subject and the government were re-elected. Again, this was an issue brought up by the subject's opponents that was discontinued by them upon them getting no traction.

The third allegation at hand in Nospamalot's content relates to government decisions and actions beyond the subject's direct control, again though attempting to put the subject 'under a cloud' to discredit him. Firstly, it is true that the subject joined the Treasurer to announce funding for commuter car parks prior to the previous election. Nospamalot is incorrect though in stating that "these plans were scrapped in 2021". The State Government in 2021 rejected building the car parking on their land, but the funding itself is not lost. The Federal Government has instead been actively working with the Local Government to build these car parks on local government land instead, with discussions ongoing. The remainder of Nospamalot's commentary then does not relate to the subject. The subject was not involved in the administration of the programme, nor in determining which commuter car parks would be chosen to be funded through the program. This was done at the ministerial/executive/departmental level. While media concerns have been raised recently about the Federal Government's administration of this program, this does not relate directly to the subject. Thus, this is yet another attempt by Nospamalot to embroil the subject by attempting to discredit him and 'put him under a cloud' of guilt by association.

In summary, please respectively consider removing this recently added (and re-added) section written and added by 'Nospamalot' from the subject's Wikipedia page, particularly given it contains discredited, defamatory and incorrect information. Please also keep an eye on the page to prevent this vandalism of the page occurring, which as mentioned is being done only to frame the subject in a negative light in an attempt to discredit the subject, vandalise the page and advantage Nospamalot's own political agenda.

It must be noted that, while this page has existed for years, the last week is the first time that serious attempted vandalism of the page, for a political agenda, has occurred.

Thank you very much for your time looking into this matter.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: I'm aware there is very likely sockpuppet activity at the said article, and there are ways and means to look into that. Your wall of text above goes a long way towards explaining the actions of other editors but doesn't change that I warned you for removal of sourced content. If the references provided are defamatory, then there are other ways to have that dealt with, but Wikipedia isn't that solution. If the information in the article is verifiable and sourced from a reliable publication, that is what Wikipedia wants to include. Nobody will win by using sockpuppets, by edit warring, or by claiming otherwise reliable sources are printing defamatory content. There's been a lot of activity at the article, back and forth, by obvious new accounts with a single purpose. By worrying about your own editing style, and reporting issues with other editors if you see them behaving outside the rules, and using the article talk page to discuss edits which are deemed controversial, you may find a solution in the end that doesn't involve the article switching back and forth endlessly. The article will likely be protected from editing until a consensus is reached on the content if the behaviour that has occurred until now is going to be the way forward. -- Longhair\^talk 22:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to reply as a sub-comment to your reply, so apologies for the separate post.

Re your reply, so what is the solution?

It should be noted that as soon as your warning/comments were seen, this user I10love9kangaroos84 has made no further undo or changes to the page. And you mentioned on the I10love9kangaroos84 talk page that "If you think I made a mistake" to go directly to you, which has been done.

Currently, Nospamalot is being allowed to put up commentary (including inaccurate and irrelevant information) to deliberately discredit and frame the subject in a negative light for political purposes, which as noted in the previous comment on this talk page also includes unsourced and incorrect information: e.g. "The parliamentary vote to refer...[the subject] to the High Court was defeated and...[the subject] continued to serve...and contested the 2019 federal election." where no such vote ever occurred.

You've also acknowledged this as being sockpuppet activity.

If any attempts are made to even edit or clarify this information added by Nospamalot (then re-added by yourself), then you've indicated that further page changes may be blocked. This then allows for this information without changes or clarification to continue on the page.

It should, separately, be noted that 203.220.186.201 removed multiple sets of fully sourced and cited information without any ramifications. But in this case where information was removed written by Nospamalot that selectively used sources, in the situation that Nospamalot was trying to frame the subject in a negative manner for political purposes, action was taken to restore this content (in favour of Nospamalot).

It would be therefore asked that this section, which is damaging to the subject and incorrect in many regards, be removed by you as an Administrator until a conversation, say over a talk page, can be held regarding this content.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: I cannot look into the entire picture right now as I am busy offline but will try to return later in the day to look deeper into the issues going on at the page. I suspected sockpuppet activity; I didn't acknowledge it, but I've been around here for a while and I've seen similar editing before and usually it'll be something untoward going on via new accounts with an agenda to push etc. I can assure you that if I look and find editors I suspect of being sockpuppets I will be looking into that further and acting accordingly. That goes for editors on both sides of the content diagreement. I did not say you cannot edit the article or face a block. I asked for the edit warring to stop, and both editors involved were warned at the time. In the meantime, there is also available the BLP noticeboard where issues of this nature can be taken for a wider look into the issue when time is not on my side. If no resolution is offered there in the meantime, upon my return I'll take the time to go over the edits and see who's up to shenanigans or not. -- Longhair\^talk 01:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: I've asked for assistance at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chris_Crewther. Hopefully this helps until I can be more available to glance over it all. -- Longhair\^talk 03:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your looking in-depth into this matter is much appreciated.

And, apologies, as your comment "The article will likely be protected from editing until a consensus is reached on the content if the behaviour that has occurred until now is going to be the way forward" had been taken to mean further edits of that section added by Nospamalot might be taken as an edit war resulting in protection of that section for editing, and thus incorrect, unsourced, and/or incomplete (aka 'framing') information then remaining.

Also, apologies for using the word "acknowledgement", noting you have said that "I suspected sockpuppet activity; I didn't acknowledge it".

For context, in this case, edits of this page commenced on 14 July 2021 from 203.220.186.201. Changes made included reframing previously neutral sentences such as "serving as its Federal Member of Parliament from 2016-19." to instead read "and serving until his defeat at the 2019 Federal Election.", as well as other changes such as adding that the subject had been unsuccessful in a recent preselection.

It should be noted that this person is a known political opponent of the subject, identified based on their previous edits using the same IP address. The context is that the subject came second in a preselection on 10 July 2021, so this political opponent has attempted to alter the page to undermine and discredit the subject to reduce the chance of them re-emerging as a political candidate in the future, which also though has an impact on the subject's current employment prospects.

After these changes were made, further changes to the page were made to re-assert neutrality and to make other updates. It effectively has snowballed from there, with further changes made by 203.220.186.201 that became increasingly more malicious as edits and corrections were made. 203.220.186.201 also made edits to other pages edited by 123.208.64.237, such as edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Slavery_Act_2015 by going through publicly available edits previously made under IP address 123.208.64.237.

Edits back and forth have currently reached close to neutrality on these other sections though.

However, this has then snowballed further and led to the recent section being added by Nospamalot (aka 202.220.186.201) which is much more malicious in targeting the subject to try discredit them, including using both unsourced information and sourced information without full context to try 'frame' the subject in a negative light (information which was later was discredited by other sourced information as previously explained to you).

This more malicious section was also added with an accompanying dishonest edit, where Nospamalot states that the subject "...featured prominently in the media across a number of high-profile events, which seem to have been removed from this page." noting that all this information added by Nospamalot was new to the page and had never been previously removed (as evidenced by the page's edit history).

Surely Wikipedia pages should not be able to be misused by political opponents in attempts to discredit political (or ex-political) subjects and to advantage themselves politically? These malicious edits should be deemed as vandalism and non-neutral edits, and thus disallowed.

If this section is removed, the page would be pretty much neutral in its current form otherwise.

Noted also upon almost completing this reply to you is your referral of the page to the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons noticeboard. That is appreciated. Adding to that, given your involvement in this matter, your direct looking at the history of the edits would be much appreciated when you have time, given you are busy offline currently.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: Firstly, to reply within a section of a talk page, or any page for that matter, scroll up to the section header and use the edit button there. That'll open the edit window in just the section you're editing, almost the same as article editing. Talk pages are really no different. Helps keep the conversation in one place and clear.

As for the section, I can see what is occurring, and the title alone is problematic. Most politicians are at times the focus of media attention, so a quick look tells me an attempt to bring negative light through such a section. is possibly occurring. To help me out here until I can devote more time to this issue, can you provide me with any usernames and ip addresses that you believe are editing the same, ie, you feel they're the same person. Am I correct in suggesting this section alone is the problematic one you feel isn't neutral? And if that section were to be removed and taken to a talk page discussion, there would be some way forward for editors to discuss without article disruption a way forward where any reliably sourced information could be included and the remainder discussed until resolution. For now I have marked the section as requiring attention for neutrality issues. -- Longhair\^talk 05:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Thank you for your instructions on how to reply within a section of a talk page. 'Focus of media attention' is indeed a problematic title, as you say, as this section could effectively be filled with media articles and content about the (or a) subject both positive, negative and in-between. There are always negative articles on politicians of all shapes and sizes, often fed by opponents both from other parties and within (and in a number of cases not true or only partially true (particularly in opinion articles or where particular journalists have political links or bents on all sides), and often later discredited in subsequent media or rebuttals), so any political page could therefore be framed in such a way with similar sections to only highlight such alleged negative content. Such sections therefore set a bad precedent and a potential back and forth exercise between editors of pages (often non-neutral editors or subjects facing edits, particularly when it comes to political pages).

As requested, the usernames/IP addresses that are editing the same (being extremely likely the same person) are 203.220.186.201 (a known political opponent of the subject) and username Nospamalot. On the current version of the Wikipedia page, while there are parts that could do with some minor work, this section is the major problematic one that is not neutral. If that section were to be removed, and taken to a talk page discussion, that would provide some way forward for editors to discuss without article disruption as a possible way forward.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: OK, I've taken a deeper look over the edit history, and I also came to the conclusion that nospamalot and 203.220.186.201 are editing with an aim to portray the subject in a negative light. I notice now you provided that information earlier so my apologies for skimming over that part. What I also found was several accounts on the opposing side of the debate, Vry7564woh18sad (talk · contribs), Pmp10984IKWYA (talk · contribs) and yourself, as I10love9kangaroos84 (talk · contribs). They look like throwaway usernames to me, but that's perhaps my suspicious mind at work. I did not find any editing between those accounts that suggests they are switching between accounts, but they may be related. Are you linked to any of those accounts by chance?

While it may be coincidence, all 3 of those usernames are editing in a positive way towards the subject, and all named similar, using numbers to intersperse their username. I did not find any evidence of what we call sock puppetry, meaning I suspect nobody us using multiple accounts wrongfully to feign support to push their points of view and similar. In saying that, in regards to nospamalot and the ip, there is nothing against the rules to say an editor using an ip cannot later create an account and resume editing. That happens quite frequently. Should they return to editing under the ip however, that is leaning towards foul play.

Remember, content that is verifiable via a reliable source and meets the policy on neutrality is worthy of inclusion in the article, taking into consideration the issues of due or undue weight.

I propose this solution. Clearly state your objections to the section concerned at the article talk page. Don't use edit summaries to discuss these points. I'll watch the article and if other editors are not engaging in talk page discussion but rather return to edit warring or pushing a point, they will be dealt with accordingly. Again, I've left a template to alerts editors to the issue with the section concerned which refers them to the talk page where they can hopefully read and discuss the issues you can outline there.

Also, the image currently being used I have tagged as a copyright violation as it's been lifted from a news website without permission. Another image will need to be sourced because the current image will be deleted until permission to use such image is sought. -- Longhair\^talk 07:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LongHair, I respecfully urge you to publish the biography as it is not mine. It belongs to person who has done alot for the social welfare and human rights in Pakistan. Please publish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsptiofficial (talk • contribs)

@Wsptiofficial: Ok, this is pretty simple. When a user named Wsptiofficial creates an article titled Wajahat Sami, who is a member of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, you're very likely writing about yourself, or very closely associated with that person. Your article was deleted as being promotional and shouldn't be recreated by somebody connected, such as yourself. -- Longhair\^talk 21:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the quick response. He is my mentor, thats why I published it Wajahat178 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the quick response. He is my mentor, thats why I published it Wajahat178 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your looking in-depth into this matter is much appreciated.

And, apologies, as your comment "The article will likely be protected from editing until a consensus is reached on the content if the behaviour that has occurred until now is going to be the way forward" had been taken to mean further edits of that section added by Nospamalot might be taken as an edit war resulting in protection of that section for editing, and thus incorrect, unsourced, and/or incomplete (aka 'framing') information then remaining.

Also, apologies for using the word "acknowledgement", noting you have said that "I suspected sockpuppet activity; I didn't acknowledge it".

For context, in this case, edits of this page commenced on 14 July 2021 from 203.220.186.201. Changes made included reframing previously neutral sentences such as "serving as its Federal Member of Parliament from 2016-19." to instead read "and serving until his defeat at the 2019 Federal Election.", as well as other changes such as adding that the subject had been unsuccessful in a recent preselection.

It should be noted that this person is a known political opponent of the subject, identified based on their previous edits using the same IP address. The context is that the subject came second in a preselection on 10 July 2021, so this political opponent has attempted to alter the page to undermine and discredit the subject to reduce the chance of them re-emerging as a political candidate in the future, which also though has an impact on the subject's current employment prospects.

After these changes were made, further changes to the page were made to re-assert neutrality and to make other updates. It effectively has snowballed from there, with further changes made by 203.220.186.201 that became increasingly more malicious as edits and corrections were made. 203.220.186.201 also made edits to other pages edited by 123.208.64.237, such as edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Slavery_Act_2015 by going through publicly available edits previously made under IP address 123.208.64.237.

Edits back and forth have currently reached close to neutrality on these other sections though.

However, this has then snowballed further and led to the recent section being added by Nospamalot (aka 202.220.186.201) which is much more malicious in targeting the subject to try discredit them, including using both unsourced information and sourced information without full context to try 'frame' the subject in a negative light (information which was later was discredited by other sourced information as previously explained to you).

This more malicious section was also added with an accompanying dishonest edit, where Nospamalot states that the subject "...featured prominently in the media across a number of high-profile events, which seem to have been removed from this page." noting that all this information added by Nospamalot was new to the page and had never been previously removed (as evidenced by the page's edit history).

Surely Wikipedia pages should not be able to be misused by political opponents in attempts to discredit political (or ex-political) subjects and to advantage themselves politically? These malicious edits should be deemed as vandalism and non-neutral edits, and thus disallowed.

If this section is removed, the page would be pretty much neutral in its current form otherwise.

Noted also upon almost completing this reply to you is your referral of the page to the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons noticeboard. That is appreciated. Adding to that, given your involvement in this matter, your direct looking at the history of the edits would be much appreciated when you have time, given you are busy offline currently.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: Firstly, to reply within a section of a talk page, or any page for that matter, scroll up to the section header and use the edit button there. That'll open the edit window in just the section you're editing, almost the same as article editing. Talk pages are really no different. Helps keep the conversation in one place and clear.

As for the section, I can see what is occurring, and the title alone is problematic. Most politicians are at times the focus of media attention, so a quick look tells me an attempt to bring negative light through such a section. is possibly occurring. To help me out here until I can devote more time to this issue, can you provide me with any usernames and ip addresses that you believe are editing the same, ie, you feel they're the same person. Am I correct in suggesting this section alone is the problematic one you feel isn't neutral? And if that section were to be removed and taken to a talk page discussion, there would be some way forward for editors to discuss without article disruption a way forward where any reliably sourced information could be included and the remainder discussed until resolution. For now I have marked the section as requiring attention for neutrality issues. -- Longhair\^talk 05:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Thank you for your instructions on how to reply within a section of a talk page. 'Focus of media attention' is indeed a problematic title, as you say, as this section could effectively be filled with media articles and content about the (or a) subject both positive, negative and in-between. There are always negative articles on politicians of all shapes and sizes, often fed by opponents both from other parties and within (and in a number of cases not true or only partially true (particularly in opinion articles or where particular journalists have political links or bents on all sides), and often later discredited in subsequent media or rebuttals), so any political page could therefore be framed in such a way with similar sections to only highlight such alleged negative content. Such sections therefore set a bad precedent and a potential back and forth exercise between editors of pages (often non-neutral editors or subjects facing edits, particularly when it comes to political pages).

As requested, the usernames/IP addresses that are editing the same (being extremely likely the same person) are 203.220.186.201 (a known political opponent of the subject) and username Nospamalot. On the current version of the Wikipedia page, while there are parts that could do with some minor work, this section is the major problematic one that is not neutral. If that section were to be removed, and taken to a talk page discussion, that would provide some way forward for editors to discuss without article disruption as a possible way forward.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: OK, I've taken a deeper look over the edit history, and I also came to the conclusion that nospamalot and 203.220.186.201 are editing with an aim to portray the subject in a negative light. I notice now you provided that information earlier so my apologies for skimming over that part. What I also found was several accounts on the opposing side of the debate, Vry7564woh18sad (talk · contribs), Pmp10984IKWYA (talk · contribs) and yourself, as I10love9kangaroos84 (talk · contribs). They look like throwaway usernames to me, but that's perhaps my suspicious mind at work. I did not find any editing between those accounts that suggests they are switching between accounts, but they may be related. Are you linked to any of those accounts by chance?

While it may be coincidence, all 3 of those usernames are editing in a positive way towards the subject, and all named similar, using numbers to intersperse their username. I did not find any evidence of what we call sock puppetry, meaning I suspect nobody us using multiple accounts wrongfully to feign support to push their points of view and similar. In saying that, in regards to nospamalot and the ip, there is nothing against the rules to say an editor using an ip cannot later create an account and resume editing. That happens quite frequently. Should they return to editing under the ip however, that is leaning towards foul play.

Remember, content that is verifiable via a reliable source and meets the policy on neutrality is worthy of inclusion in the article, taking into consideration the issues of due or undue weight.

I propose this solution. Clearly state your objections to the section concerned at the article talk page. Don't use edit summaries to discuss these points. I'll watch the article and if other editors are not engaging in talk page discussion but rather return to edit warring or pushing a point, they will be dealt with accordingly. Again, I've left a template to alerts editors to the issue with the section concerned which refers them to the talk page where they can hopefully read and discuss the issues you can outline there.

Also, the image currently being used I have tagged as a copyright violation as it's been lifted from a news website without permission. Another image will need to be sourced because the current image will be deleted until permission to use such image is sought. -- Longhair\^talk 07:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Thank you for looking further into this and your conclusion "that nospamalot and 203.220.186.201 are editing with an aim to portray the subject in a negative light". It should be noted that a new user has now started edited this evening as well, Bobcat4455, which is also suspected to be the same person as nospamalot and 203.220.186.201 (as a new account only editing this page). And no worries regarding previous skimming over, particularly given you are busy and out and about.

With respect to having username I10love9kangaroos84, that avoids the issue and security of having a publicly displayed IP address, issues of malicious users like 203.220.186.201 going through multiple publicly-available prior edits of public IP addresses to make changes, and also was specifically named to show user 203.220.186.201 an awareness of their identity through the username numbers and content itself. This account was set up on a new laptop computer, having not recalling the passwords of the below usernames logged in with auto-saved non-visible passwords on other devices.

In terms of other accounts, Vry7564woh18sad is from a desktop computer from a username set up a while ago that is hardly used unless working from that desktop (the random password for that username is not known now and only saved when working on that desktop computer). Pmp10984IKWYA was from working on a mobile device without access to the desktop at the time, and not wishing to operate from a public displayed IP address, when defending against changes made by 203.220.186.201 when out and about (as made on 19 July but noticed only on 20 July). Again, that's using a random complicated password logged in only on that device.

This all stems from poorer IT skills, and setting up too complicated passwords for security on different devices, as against any attempted sock puppetry or other malicious intent. It might be better though to reset the password of one of those accounts and to then login and use the same username across all devices. Being, until recent days, not a regular Wikipedia user, having an ongoing username wasn't a priority though.

In terms of the image, email notification was received regarding that copyright issue so that username has been logged into on the desktop and a 'deletion' notification put up adding to your 'speedy deletion', as email permission had previously been granted by the publisher to utilise that image, albeit the wrong copyright was selected it seems to begin with. Again, IT skills and lack of Wikipedia knowledge are limiting the ability to know how to correct this to demonstrate this permission from the original publisher of the image.

In terms of your proposed solution, I am more in agreement with your original proposed solution in your earlier comment ("if that section were to be removed and taken to a talk page discussion, there would be some way forward for editors to discuss without article disruption a way forward where any reliably sourced information could be included and the remainder discussed until resolution") as that, for now, removes the non-neutral content currently publicly displayed, enabling then a discussion to take place over a talk page until a resolution is reached, if any.

The newer proposed solution leaves incorrect, later discredited, and incomplete information in the public domain, while talk ensues. While engaging in a talk debate between editors while the non-neutral section remains public is better than nothing happening, your formerly suggested approach would be a better solution in terms of taking the conversation off the public interface until a solution or compromise can be reached, if any.

Happy to discuss further.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: Apologies for deleting your recent reply. I was cleaning up and didn't notice your latest addition here before I saved. Hopefully we're all restored again now. I'll cleanup tomorrow with a clearer head than I have today :D

Now, I am watching the article via my own watchlist. While I am not here 24x7 I can look back on the edit history, as everyone can, and determine what has been happening while I am away. One issue I have is that I do not want to involve myself in any actual content arguments, because that can complicate matters if I then step in as an administrator to sort out any issues that may arise. Another administrator would need to assist in that situation if I began taking sides.

Take a read over WP:BRD. If you take issue with any content that isn't verifiable per the sources provided, or any unsourced content for that matter, remove it. Then head to the talk page to explain why you've removed it. If that kicks off another edit war, I'll be aware of it eventually. I was aware a new editor arrived tonight with similar intentions to previous edits, and sometimes I observe, allowing time, to see what eventuates. The more time that passes, the more evidence is gathered of editing patterns and the like. As I mentioned earlier there are mechanisms in place for trusted persons to look beyond the edit histories, and for editors creating sock accounts to be brought out into the light and I can assure you that kind of behaviour is frowned upon. Blocking of accounts for those caught trying to game the system is usually the outcome.

Lastly, I am beginning to suspect everyone editing here, or the majority of recent editors has a conflict of interest with the topic, either as the subject of the article, a close associate, a political competitor and the like. If that is the case, you're far better declaring that conflict of interest (this applies to all sides, not just those on your side of the content debate), because a conflict of interest often makes things difficult to edit with neutrality in mind. Again, there are systems in place for inputting to an article where such a conflict exists. As for those other accounts I came across that you say are related, we're going to need to choose one you wish to edit from and cease using the rest of them altogether. Choose a password that's memorable, secure and your password for editing here, and those other accounts are to be retired. Wikipedia does not allow multiple accounts unless there's a good reason. You can use the same account across multiple devices. -- Longhair\^talk 10:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: All good and no worries re the deletion. It is restored now. Thanks also for keeping a watch on the page. I'll also read over WP:BRD, in order to correct and edit later discredited information or unsourced information, or at least to comment on the talk page within that non-neutral section for now. I've also reset the password for this account, with something complicated but memorable, so that it can now be used across multiple devices. Thanks for all the tips.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: Thanks for your honesty on the multiple account issue. I will now block those other accounts from being able to edit. I've also launched an investigation into the accounts editing on the opposing side to see if they're linked. I don't want to go into that matter further as it relates to their edits and not yours, but rest assured, if something untoward is going on, it'll be brought to light. On the image issue, if you have been granted permission that'll need to be provided via the image description. If you're unsure about this I can look into this perhaps tomorrow. -- Longhair\^talk 11:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: Ignore the notices on the two blocked accounts. I perform a lot of blocks some days and I just selected the nearest reason to execute the block rather than type a lengthy explanation. I'll head over and clean up the talk pages. You beat me to it. It'll be sorted shortly. -- Longhair\^talk 11:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Thank you very much for fixing the account access issue, and retiring those other usernames.I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: As you'll note, comments were today added to the talk page related to the non-neutral section as per your recommendation: "I propose this solution. Clearly state your objections to the section concerned at the article talk page. Don't use edit summaries to discuss these points. I'll watch the article and if other editors are not engaging in talk page discussion but rather return to edit warring or pushing a point, they will be dealt with accordingly." I have not engaged in edits of the main text of this section at this stage, including to the totally unsourced and incorrect sentence mentioned.

Also, attempts were made to show the permission given to the photo, but it seems there are further forms to fill out so will follow that up with the publisher.

In addition, apologies for all the tags given you are likely busy and dealing with many other matters. Just wanted you to be aware actions had been taken as recommended, and to ensure things were being done correctly as recommended at my end.

Noted also was your blocking of the now former user page Nospamalot of the political opponent (who had made edits under Bobcat4455, Nospamalot and 203.220.186.201).

Further, also noted are comments by this political opponent that these edits were made in good faith. Editors like Ivar the Boneful, Bilby and others are making edits in good faith to ensure article neutrality, proper sourcing and proper wording. But the edits of the political opponent were certainly not made in good faith, instead being kicked off under 203.220.186.201 originally (triggering all the responses) and then Nospamalot, in particular, to reframe the article in a negative non-neutral light and to add incorrect, incomplete, 'framing' material, and sources containing claims that were later discredited as discussed with a particular political intent.

It would be hoped that therefore action can be taken with respect to this section, pending the outcome of the talk page, with as you noted there being issues even with the title given positive, negative and in-between articles could be added and politicians are often the 'focus of media attention'.

With respect to the tag at the top of the page, obviously happy here to edit anything needed to, or accept edits made in good faith by genuine users, where the intentions are to ensure neutrality in wording, content, better sourcing of citations, etc. Noting that this header tag states that "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner", perhaps an additional tag (if there is an appropriate one) should also be added noting that the article also contains information and wording (e.g. like "caught up in") aimed to discredit the subject in a non-objective manner, to ensure balance in any ensuing discussion with respect to this header tag?

Perhaps there is also a tag that can be added to the header tag, as well, balancing this one ("A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject"), in noting that 'a major contributor to this article appears to be a political opponent (or similar) of the subject'?

Thanks for your continual engagement on this page and these issues.

I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I10love9kangaroos84: Maintenance tags are added to articles when editors, any editors, take issue with the content. The aim is to work towards removing those tags, not adding or creating more. If you misunderstand why those tags are there, check the article edit history, see who added it, and ask them, or ask via the talk page.

I'll offer you some advice... don't worry what others are up to... while I am aware there is negativity ongoing and directed at the article, and some "whitewashing" as others have been calling it, don't become fixated on any editor in particular because they'll soon start throwing the same barbs back at you, if they've not done already. Just edit within Wikipedia policy, discuss any controversies, and let administrators deal with bad actors and similar sorts. Of course, there's nothing stopping you from making reports about others, but Wikipedia is full of folks with differing opinions and it's easy to become bogged down in heated debates and lose sight of what you're here for, article improvement.

I saw the image issue, you'll need clearer permission. I am not an administrator over at Commons so I can only offer advice, which has been provided by somebody over there today in response to you. Hopefully the article editing is now free of sock puppets, edit wars and other unwelcome behaviours, and work can proceed without the friction that existed before. -- Longhair\^talk 11:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Thank you and your advice is noted. Regarding the image, additional permission has been sought in accordance with the required process. Cheers for that.I10love9kangaroos84 (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Im unsure why you deleted my link, it wasn't inappropriate, it was definitely within the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.21.230 (talk • contribs)

@98.213.21.230: So you added your business website link to an article on a US State Park? You and I both know that's spam. -- Longhair\^talk 21:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Longhair. My explanation for my relationship to my Royal Hawaiian Monarchy is not advertising as my family are the Throne but is an introduction to Wikipedia as I see so much wrong history is somehow left on the media and here too but should be added to all valid encyclopedias. HRM Queen Leona Leimomi Perrells (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HRM Queen Leona Leimomi Perrells: If there's an article on the topic, then you're welcome to edit that to bring improvements (backed up by reliable sources). Aside from that, you've created the same content at your userpage, your talk page, your sandbox... perhaps a website of your own is better suited to your needs? -- Longhair\^talk 08:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, the problem is putting copies on my pages here? My family are historic. Please check your sources. I do also have a Royal Guard through the State today. Perhaps you should check with them. I don’t think Wikipedia would like you inhibiting history either. HRM Queen Leona Leimomi Perrells (talk)

Hello,

I just tried to change coordinates on a lake in France. I cannot find how to properly do coordinates and I deeply apologize for the inconvenience. Could you please help me?

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GdeMlzc (talk • contribs)

@GdeMlzc: It's not something I've ever attempted before, but my first guess would be to identify the correct coordinates and add the information to the revelant infobox or template? There's an entire WikiProject dedicated to such a topic. Perhaps they can assist? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. -- Longhair\^talk 10:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: I have taken the coordinates from Google Earth. If you give me sometime, I will figure it out by trial and error (I apologize again about this). Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GdeMlzc (talk • contribs)

@Longhair: I have corrected it. The coordinates appear correctly and point to the right place now. Thank you for your time (ps : my bad, I'm still learning how to use the talk: feature...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GdeMlzc (talk • contribs) GdeMlzc (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Do you know the full story of his life and what he has done, don’t update his wiki page with only positive comments

Do you know what dirty deeds he has done, just because he produced movies , this person does not deserve a Wikipedia page .

What is his contribution? He has cheated many ppl to produce movies, starting from his gf urf ex wife to all his close friends Don’t be mersmerised by his words — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.192.163 (talk • contribs)

@92.40.192.163: Wikipedia isn't interested in your grievances. We are interested in articles that are verifiable via reliably sourced information. Your edits are considered vandalism (and likely to be defamatory) and that's why they were undone. -- Longhair\^talk 10:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There was a recent press conference by Rakshit Shetty on the type of criminal activity he has done, not paying money to daily wage workers in the set- why isn’t this updated Who is grieving with you

Why have you not mentioned that he has been divorced and the type of harassment he has done to his wife, why ain’t the page is updated with those .

He has cheated and has a case filed in tumkur court for fraud and he has done forgery, get your facts straight and then update his page

You keep suggesting I am responsible for the article. Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. Goodbye. -- Longhair\^talk 11:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YGM JarrahTree 06:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: Assuming YGM stands for you got mail, nothing has arrived. -- Longhair\^talk 06:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: Replied. -- Longhair\^talk 06:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ta JarrahTree 06:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we live in inneresting times :) JarrahTree 06:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is it possible to uncheck the "create talk page" button when blocking accounts with abusive usernames like these? That will deny recognition to these users. aeschylus (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeschylus: I can do that. -- Longhair\^talk 01:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

How can be BabyDogeCoin advertising? All crypto currencies have a own page on wikipedia. Small, and even big crypto. BabyDogeCoin is listed on 20+ big news mainstream.

Put it back please, google yourself on news.google.com 'BabyDogecoin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moontime777 (talk • contribs)

@Moontime777: The content was removed from your userpage, which is not used for the creation of articles. Secondly, your article contained no references, which will be required if you wish to submit a draft article of the same topic. There are thousands of cryptocurrencies out there, and not all of them have an article. -- Longhair\^talk 00:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was not meant to be on my userpage. I'm going to change the page a little bit so it will get accepted. Trust me, everyone is going to add more information on that page when its created. A friend of mine created Shiba Inu wikipedia without no problem. Is it okay, to rewrite the page a little bit on BabyDogeCoin and you can check again for me?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moontime777 (talk • contribs)

@Moontime777: You'll need to clean up the language before submission, such as "Simply love, pet, and watch your baby doge grow.", because that sounds very promotional. And add reliable sources of your information to the article. Your article will be looked over once you submit it as a draft by a reviewer. -- Longhair\^talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good explained! I took your adivice! I changed it and took me 1 hour to make it clean and neat for readers.

Can u check sir?

Thank you!

Longhair our article in the making has been deleted. Apparantly our account has been blocked due to promotion or advertising. Can you please clarify what we did wrong and how we can solve this issue? Thanks in advance

@2A01:C22:340A:DA00:DEF:6A0B:87C0:A0D0: Log into your blocked account and read over the block notice left on your talk page. If you wish to request unblocking there will be instructions on how to do so as part of the block notice. -- Longhair\^talk 09:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2A01:C22:340A:DA00:DEF:6A0B:87C0:A0D0: Ok, I blocked your account and deleted your article. Your username is in violation of the Wikipedia username policy, as "tribe" may imply that a group of editors is using the account. Accounts are for use by a single person only. As for the advertising or promotional editing, you were creating articles about your own products, and that's advertising, and funny enough, promotional editing :D -- Longhair\^talk 09:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Ariful Matz and I wish that I need your help to make my personal official wikipedia page. Thanks and Regards Steven Matz (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven Matz: Practice all you like in your sandbox. I'll also post some Welcome information to your talk page. -- Longhair\^talk 08:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, leave the critique, it's based on facts and expirience, why would you remove it? New players, if they would like to buy the game must know what they buy before they do it. What's the point in removing the critique? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowBoss717 (talk • contribs)

@ShadowBoss717: Your edit was removed because Wikipedia isn't interested in your opinion, but wants information that is backed by reliable sources. Perhaps post your critique in an internet forum. -- Longhair\^talk 20:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal opinion, it's a fact, that can be proven and is known to every player. THis is not dev's personal glorifying page, and it's 100% trustworthy info. Not everything on a page is backed by reliable source, so you will remove that information too, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowBoss717 (talk • contribs)

@ShadowBoss717: Provide a reliable source for your information or it will continue to be removed. Multiple editors are telling you this now. -- Longhair\^talk 20:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I was creating english version of my guru aripiral viswam, which has already a page in TELUGU

I am not doing anything suspicious or misleading

Kindly revoke the page

https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/అరిపిరాల_విశ్వం

Is the page , check and respond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandaghana (talk • contribs)

@Anandaghana: My apologies but I only speak and read the English language therefore sending me information in Telugu is of no use to me. As your username is Anandaghana (talk · contribs) and the article you were creating was about a person named Anandaghana I was of the understanding you were creating an article about yourself. I've left a note on your talk page why doing so is not appropriate at Wikipedia. -- Longhair\^talk 19:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can i recreate my Page User Id : anandaghana

Wikipedia says ..as it has already deleted the page, content similar to it again if recreated needs to be authorised by the user who deleted it, check and confirm Shri. Long hair

Thanks for blocking User:City_of_Branch. Appreciate you being Administrator. Following the agreed rules, I will be happy to have the user back - editing wikipedia, as the user appears to be very knowledgable about the city and it's surroundings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinecar (talk • contribs)

@Pinecar: I usually don't discuss blocks with others but I will say that the editor will need to submit an unblock request to be considered for unblocking. You're welcome to communicate with them via their talk page if you have any comments that are related to their editing. As the block notice advises, their username was problematic and raises issues of a conflict of interest and the possibility of a role account / shared account which is against username policy. As the administrator who blocked the account, it is usual practice for another administrator to review my decision once an unblock request is received. -- Longhair\^talk 22:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that I'm not sure this user was given a fair evaluation of their unblock request. Though I won't contest your block in any way, I did want to note that I think they may have had a valid unblock request that should've been heard out. Thanks. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: That's a fair summary. 1. They arrived here launching personal attacks, and 2... clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- Longhair\^talk 23:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True and I will add I do support the indef block for the reason that they're almost certainly a sock. They can always submit another unblock request if they do have a good reason. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: While I take no objection to your friendly and enjoyable banter at their talk page, as I indicated at their talk page, they failed the duck test and showed a good understanding of how Wikipedia operates from the moment they arrived. While I should have blocked them as a sock and not for the reason specified, both reasons apply in my view. We both know Wikipedia isn't a chat line... and while your conversation was jovial in nature, it was always going to end the way it did eventually whether I or another administrator stepped in. They still have the UTRS option to request an unblock... left as it was, you two would have discussed smoking dope and calling each other out forever :D Peace out...! -- Longhair\^talk 23:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you're definitely not wrong. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Checkuser confirmed sock. Quack. :D -- Longhair\^talk 05:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Longhair! Can I manually revert British Tiger’s edit which is tagged as ‘use of deprecated (unreliable) source’? As it is tagged that, I do not thing it should stay on the page for very long. Is it ok if I revert it or will I get an edit war warning? KejuFuru (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KejuFuru: You're talking about an older edit are you, as that editor has been blocked and isn't due back yet? Yes you are welcome to revert edits that rely upon deprecated sources, but please make a mention of it in your edit summary. Happy editing! -- Longhair\^talk 05:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the information! KejuFuru (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KejuFuru: Is it that DailyStar edit from a bit back? Perhaps explain to them what the issue is as they may not fully understand. You'll find that the more you explain yourself in the edit summary, the more they'll come to understand and stop frustrating you with undoing your changes. Be careful you're not undoing other good work however. Or they'll probably revert you back and here we go again :D -- Longhair\^talk 06:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about a recent edit by BritishTiger whose edit was tagged as ‘use of deprecated (unreliable) sources’. The user who got blocked for 48 hrs. Yes, i’ll be careful about the edit summaries, I can understand what you’re saying and thanks a lot for your help and guidance! Don’t worry I’ll explain things properly in the edit summary. KejuFuru (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Longhair, BritishTiger has started doing the same thing again. So many warnings but no learning. He just keeps edit warring and adds deprecated sources without any explanation in the edit summaries, I even told him what not to add to a page by linking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources in the warning but he is still asking me how his edits are unreliable. This is really frustrating and getting out of my hands so please take some strict actions mate. He is also removing some content without any proper explanation. Please do something… KejuFuru (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KejuFuru: Yes I am aware. I've left a note on their talk page, having now told them multiple times. It won't go on much longer. I'll allow them some time to reply to my note and see where to go from here. -- Longhair\^talk 11:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KejuFuru: Dealt with. Carry on... and thanks for helping to clean things up over there. -- Longhair\^talk 11:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: Thanks a lot mate! With that, I am sure that page would become a little more peaceful again. I really appreciate it, thanks ^-^ ! After seeing his recent edit in his talk page, I think he has still not realised his mistake. KejuFuru (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Longhair! I need some help, first answer that can Wiki admins revert those edits which non-admin editors can’t? Can you Wikipedia admins revert the edits which say, “The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually.” ? KejuFuru (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KejuFuru: No. That's a limitation of the software that runs Wikipedia. You'll need to edit the article and remove the text manually. Administrators don't have any magic buttons that can bypass that. -- Longhair\^talk 07:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👍 ok KejuFuru (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Ensuring Wikipedia remains good for everyone including two of my sub user pages which have been reverted. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - do you really think that a hard block was necessary for Granite Cove Big Sur? I took a look at the deleted userpage, it looked to me like someone was trying to write an article about an historic building (something I do quite often!), but didn't understand how to go about it. I didn't see anything promotional in the deleted text, maybe I overlooked something though? I just want to be sure we're not biting an innocent newb. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: They wouldn't be the first to name their account after the topic they wish to write about. Their username is in violation of the username policy, and their edits drag them over the line into promotional editing territory. I agree the article isn't your run of the mill advert we've all seen and deleted before, though it seems they do know quite a bit about current owners etc, and the property recently changed hands, and without a reference to back that, one would assume they know this info due to an association perhaps? You've left a quite reasonable note on their talk page to provide them with enough guidance to respond so let's see if anything comes back as a reply from here? -- Longhair\^talk 09:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a 'this person is connected with the subject' kind of a vibe, hence my mention of the the COI guidance, and I see that it's advertised as a filming location, so it's very possible that there's an attempt at promotion going on. I'm not sure it's actually a username violation though: I think that I'd be alright requesting a rename to User:Rusco Tower, by my reading it would only be a violation if there is an company or organisation of that name, which I'm not seeing. I'm not looking to cause a fuss though, happy to go with your judgment and see whether they respond. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Yeah I get what you're saying. Now that you mention it's advertised as a filming location, the property is also a product as well as a location (it'd be advertised under the name of the property, nothing else I suspect). I appreciate your comments and feedback on this but I very much got the promotional vibe upon inspecting the edits and went with my gut feeling. More than happy to learn otherwise.-- Longhair\^talk 09:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI again on Leigh Harris page Deevaleigh (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)deevaleigh[reply]

@Deevaleigh: Thanks. That was pretty clear promotion of her music. I've reverted and left them another message. -- Longhair\^talk 20:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm not sure how to use this talk thing but here goes!

You sent me an email re some changes I made to the bay 93.9 Wiki page a while ago.

I am not paid for those edits.

I'm not a social media specialist etc...

I'm merely an announcer at the station and thought I was doing my part to keep Wiki up to date as there was quite a bit of old info on the page.

The logo etc is our current logo.

I often look up radio stations on wiki as I work in the business and the bay page was way out of date and lacking up to date information - none of which was intended to be a "commercial"... I merely wanted the page to be correct and up to date.

I apologise if I broke any rules - I had no idea.

Sorry for not answering you back on the "talk page"...I tried to work out how to reply but I had no idea how to do it!

My apologies for not following the rules. It was not intentional and I was not acting on behalf of the company.

I'm not paid to update the page or asked by the company to update the page - I merely thought I was updating a page that was way out of date and was trying to do the right thing.

Kinds Regards,

Vk3crg (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) VK3CRG[reply]

@Vk3crg: As an announcer for the radio stations concerned you are considered to be a paid editor per the Wikipedia terms of use. You have a clear conflict of interest with the articles relating to your employment and are required to request edits via the article talk pages rather than edit the articles directly. Please also disclose any conflict of interest at your user page. The links I've provided here will give you further information on the topics linked. If you have any questions feel free to ask. -- Longhair\^talk 09:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Harris, as you can read from her wiki page, passed away Sept of 2019. I am her husband and heir of her estate. After she passed, I finished her last CD (Waking up in Dreamland) and released it.

AFTER SHE PASSED, I FOUND A LOST BOX OF HER TAPES THAT RESULTED IN THE RELEASE OF 6 MORE CDS, AND I HAVE PRODUCED AND RELEASED THEM AND LISTED THEM ON HER WIKI PAGE AS A DISCOGRAPHY. FURTHER, I FOUND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HER PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL HISTORY THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT ON HER WIKI PAGE TO CORRECT AND EXTEND WHAT IS THERE, SO I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD RESTORE HER PAGE TO THE REV I LAST PUT UP. I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME RESEARCHING HER PROFESSIONAL HISTORY AND I WANT IT TO BE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. AND SOME THINGS THAT WERE INITIALLY PUT ON THE PAGE, LIKE JOHN MEUNIER WAS THE FIRST PERCOLATORS BASS PLAYER, AND THE FACT THAT SHE WAS IN ANOTHER BAND BEFORE THAT BAND, IS INACCURATE. REFERRING TO HER SON AS A'SCRUBOLOGIST' IS UNPROFESSIONAL, AND I WOULD PREFER TO USE TO CAJUN TERM FOR IT AND ADD THAT HE IS A VOCALIST. AND THESE ARE JUST 2 OF SEVERAL CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED.

FRANKLY, I WISH I WAS MAKING MONEY FROM HER ESTATE BUT THE REALITY OF IT IS I'M IN THE RED. THE PERSON WHO POSTED THE ALERT - DEEVALEIGH IS A PERSON THAT HAS HAD AN AX TO GRIND EVER SINCE LEIGH GOT SICK WITH CANCER AND I BECAME HER SOLE CAREGIVER. HER STATEMENT TO THE AFFECT OF 'WHAT LEIGH DID NOT WANT" IS LUDICROUS, SINCE (IF IT IS WHO I THINK IT IS, BECAUSE IF THE WAY SHE PHRASED HER COMPLAINT) THIS PERSON DID NOT SEE OR TALK TO LEIGH IN THE LAST YEARS OF HER LIFE AND DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO COME TO HER FUNERAL. SHE HAS NO INTEREST WHAT SO EVER, OUTSIDE OF JUST TRYING TO DISRUPT MY EFFORTS TO GET LEIGH THE RECOGNITION SHE NEVER GOT WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE. THE ALLEGATION THAT I AM MAKING MONEY OFF WHAT I INHERITED ARE CRAZY. ALL I AM TRYING TO DO IS TO SECURE HER PLACE IN NEW ORLEANS MUSIC HISTORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Ledbetter (talk • contribs)

@Rick Ledbetter: 1. Stop adding your promotional links to BandCamp to the article. 2. Stop editing the article as you have a conflict of interest. Use the talk page to request edits. 3. Don't use all caps lock here please. -- Longhair\^talk 20:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I USE CAPS BECAUSE I NEED TO SEE. I WILL REMOVE THE SALE LINKS, BUT SEVERAL OF HER NEW RELEASES HAVE BEEN REMOVED, SO THEY NEED TO BE REPLACED. I DO NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST - TRUTH BE TOLD, I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO IS KEEPING HER PAGE UPDATED. PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AS TO HOW TO USE THE TALK PAGE TO RESTORE THE HISTORY AND DISCOGRAPHY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Ledbetter (talk • contribs)

@Rick Ledbetter: Instructions have been left at your own talk page over the previous 3 weeks of myself attempting to discuss this with you. To learn about edit requests, see the information at WP:ER. A conflict of interest does exist as you state you are her husband and heir to her estate. That's a very clear conflict of interest with the article. I also reject your assertion that you're the only one keeping the page updated as the article existed long before you began editing several weeks ago. And using caps isn't really acceptable. I note you've had no issues seeing the links you've been adding all across the page which I've also cleaned up recently. -- Longhair\^talk 21:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - my article was recently deleted, I was adding a page for a site that was recently referenced. Would it be better if there where not any links to the site? Mainly placed the concept of the website and what information can be found on the website.

Thank you for you helpDtv.nvs (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dtv.nvs: It was pure advertisement. Text such as "Science has never been more exciting, and we want you to be IN THE KNOW! Join us at Cas9.com to learn more and follow the latest updates regarding this life-changing technology. We are your one-stop resource for all your CRISPR needs." isn't exactly an enclyclopedia article is it? -- Longhair\^talk 01:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Longhair, I notice that your deletion of the banned Egacommissioner's text at Euchre has effectively been reinstated by a newly created account, Slickmanz53. I wonder if that's a sockpuppet account. What do you think? Bermicourt (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]